Team Luka

This blog is an ongoing investigation into the case and trial of Luka Magnotta. This is NOT a place for hate and it is also not a place for misguided fan-love. We offer to you the "other side of the story" , since only one biased, sensational side seems to be reported in the media, as well as ongoing coverage of the trial. It's also a look into various thoughts on life. Can you handle life?

DAY 14 - MON OCT 20 - SUMMARY    -

Today begins with the crown’s 23rd witness Vee Fong Lu. Lu worked at a postal outlet in Les Ailes shopping mall dowtown Montreal on Ste Catherine W. Montreal police approached him early June for video surveillance of May 26 2012. image

Video surveillance is shown of Magnotta entering and leaving the shop, around 12:15pm, wearing a black wig, black mickey mouse shirt and a small duffel bag. Receipts are shown, the first dated 12:15pm shows a regular mail purchase for $32, sent to Louise Jones at St George’s School in Vancouver. A second receipt for $17 is shown as well as a third receipt for a US money order for $218. No ID is required to send parcels. Lu advised items shipped Saturday would be picked up Monday morning and usually take 2-4 days to reach Vancouver. Leclair cross examines asking if Lu remembers anything in particular about the transaction or the individual and he does not. Witness is done.

Next up is witness #24, Jenny Byrne, deputy chief of staff to the Prime Minister of Canada. On May 29 2012 around 10:45am, her assistant brought in a package delivered by Canada Post. It was half open, not sealed. She began to open it, noticing some pink tissue paper on the top. Under that was an item wrapped in a black garbage bag. Inside that bag was another rectangular type black wine bag folded. This package was soft and mushy, so using scissors she clipped the top off. At that point, there was a very bad smell coming from this inner bag so sensing something was not right, it was put back in the box and the police were
called. This was the first time something of this nature had happened so it was given to police. Approx 15-20 officers arrived about 15 mins later, took the package and left. She never actually saw what was inside. This note was also in the box. image

The PM was notified of the incident. End of direct, no questions from defense, witness is done.

Witness #25 is Chantal Pombert, an Ottawa Police Officer with the forensic identification unit. On May 29, Pombert went to the Albert St office where the package was brought and ID’d as a human foot. Employees had seen blood coming out of the bag. Various Photos are shown in court of the foot. The name of the sender for this package was Renée Bordelais. Pombert was then informed a second suspicous package was intercepted at a Canada Post Plant. This package contained the left hand. It was addressed to the Liberal Party of Canada with the same name and return address as the Tory package, Renée Bordelais. Photos are shown in court of the package and hand. This packaged contained more pink tissue paper and the following note: image

Inside, a black wine gift bag, wrapped in a black garbage bag, containing a yellowish looking decomposing hand, skin shrivelled with finger tips cut. End of direct questioning. On cross examination, Leclair exaimes the note in the first parcel noticing there is an impression on the bottom right hand corner of the name Neil Fenton.  (Fenton is Laureen Teskey-Harper’s first husband).  =Break for lunch.=

After lunch break, Witness # 26 is up, Genevieve Benoit, a postal inspector for Canada Post in their Ottawa plant. On May 29, she was informed of two parcels that had been sent from the same place in downtown Montreal, one of which was still enroute that day to the Ottawa plant. Ottawa police informed her about the human foot being sent to the Tory HQ. At 5:20pm, she got a call advising the parcel had arrived at the Ottawa plant. It was addressed to the Liberal Party. Upon hearing this, she took the parcel to her office and called police. After performing a mail inspection, it was released to RCMP and bomb squad at 7:35pm. As to why they arrived at different times, she advised they likely were taken it two different trucks.  End of questioning, defense had no questions, she is done.

Next up is Witness #27, Theresa Kelm, an Ottawa police officer with 23 years on the job. On May 29 2012 she was a liason officer regarding the parcels sent to the political offices. She spoke with Genevieve Benoit and the coroner, and assisted in arrangements that were made for the body parts to be sent to Toronto for post mortem.  Defense had no questions.

Witness #28 is Panagiotis Sarganis, a Sgt Detective with the Montreal Police computer tech unit. His unit offers expertise on Internet data/evidence as well as digital media. After reviewing his CV, he is declared an expert in computer forensics and data retrieval. He also testified at the Preliminary Hearing in March 2013.   Sarganis was asked to examine the contents of a memory card from a digital camera. He did two analysis’, one in June 2012 and a second in February 2013.  On June 1, 2012, he was asked to look at a memory card belonging to a Sony DSC-W5 camera. In particular, he was asked to try to retrieve pictures and movies to help identify the victim, as well as pictures of the suspect, particularly ones where he is wearing a ring. The process took 4-5 hours. The camera itself had been discovered inside the garbage at the crime scene. It was humid, wet and not working. Using forensic software, a copy was made of the memory card, which contained 15 video files and 505 photos. The recovered media was sectioned into 4 categories: Crime Scene (20) , Pictures of Interest (20) , Wearing Ring (3) , and Other (various pics). Many of the 505 pics had been deleted by the owner, but were recovered using the sofware. The main goal on this day was to extract the media, not find dates. In any event, since the camera could not be powered up, he was unable to confirm what the camera’s time was set to, to cross reference. Later, he was asked for dates, and used info on the sureveillance video and the murder video to get reference points.

In February 2013, the second time he examined the camera, he was able to power it on, and found there was no date recorded, only the default date January 1, 2005. He was able to retrieve dates for the pics and videos. 3 Videos were created on April 13, 2005 and 12 videos were created on April 19, 2005. All 505 photos had ‘file created’ dates, as per what was stamped by the camera. The last access date when the camera was plugged into a computer to access the media on it was May 25, 2012. With the exception of 3 of the videos on it, which had last been accessed on May 22, 2012. The photos other than those of the crime scene were imported anywhere between August 12, 2009 and May 22, 2012.

At the same time, a colleague of Sarganis’s was inspecting Luka Magnotta’s laptop to match up the hash values from the memory card. He found 3 movie files Magnotta appeared to have been working on. To find out when the pictures and videos were actually taken, they needed a reference point. A video file as well as pictures depicting the crime scene and victim on the bed, dismembered, were dated April 19, 2005 on the camera with the current date not set. The video posted to the internet was on May 25, 2012 and used content from the cameras memory card dated April 19th. The video on the camera dated 6 days earlier from the other would be set at May 19, 2012. So, timestamps of April 13, 2005 = May 19, 2012. (This would be the content on the first part of the 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick Video, of the unidentified man who entered Magnotta’s apartment on the evening of May 18, 2012 and leaving the next day). So, now, they were able to establish the 2005 dates with the May 2012 dates.

This concludes today’s proceedings. Tomorrow at 9:30, it continues.


Anonymous asked: I have to say, you're doing an excellent job reporting the trail. The newspapers are being very biased and sensationalizing everything, trying to make people think that Luka is pleading insanity just to try to avoid going to prison. I like that you're reporting all the details as the way there are. Keep up the good work! My question is, are you actually in the courthouse everyday for the trail? Were you there for the prelim? If so, do you know why one of the defence lawyers quit?

Thanks for your comments. As much I’d like to have been in the courtroom from Day 1 to finish, it’s just not logistically possible. Having said that, I hope to be there in person in 2-3 weeks time for the later portion towards the end.

I wasn’t at the preliminary hearing, but spoke to some people who were. The defense lawyer who quit was due to a conflict of interest. It’s covered under a publication ban and hasn’t been testified in open court since, so can’t be reported upon.  On a side note, wasn’t it unusual that a defense lawyer from Toronto sent a fax to police giving them instructions on how to find something (the head) as testified in the trial last week?  Many people wondered why a defense lawyer would do that. Food for thought.

Jean Coutu store on Queen Mary, where boxes were purchased and 2 packages were sent from. Arrow indicates the Canada Post outlet sign.

Jean Coutu store on Queen Mary, where boxes were purchased and 2 packages were sent from. Arrow indicates the Canada Post outlet sign.



When the long-anticipated Luka Magnotta trial began on Sept. 29, many could be forgiven for considering it a done deal.

After all, Magnotta was alleged to have murdered Concordia student Jun Lin in May of 2012 and, if media reports and police statements had the story correct, the accused had posted graphic video evidence of his crimes online. The infamous “1 Lunatic 1 Icepick” video, graphic but still available through a quick Google search, shows a masked man stabbing, mutilating and feeding parts of his victim to a dog. It also shows the masked man apparently having sex with the corpse, and the head of the victim being held up after it has been cut off from his body. It’s every bit as grisly as it sounds. The jury was shown this video on Thursday, with many having to turn away or cover their faces in horror.

But despite the fact that Magnotta appears to have left a huge trail of evidence behind him, there stands a very good chance that he will get off, and escape some if not all of the five charges he faces: first-degree murder, committing an indignity to a body, publishing obscene material, criminally harassing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other members of parliament, and mailing obscene and indecent material.

As the trial commenced and the prosecution and defence made their opening statements, it was clear the two were making dramatically different arguments. Defence lawyer Luc Leclair actually conceded his client had committed the acts for which he was charged, but declared his intent to prove that Magnotta’s long history of mental illness meant that he was not criminally responsible. At times, Leclair seems a bit caught off guard in court, like a high school teacher who had forgotten his lecture notes at home. But he repeated his intent several times: he would argue that Magnotta simply can’t be held criminally responsible for the criminal charges, as horrific as they are.

Under Section 16(1) of the Canadian criminal code, a person can’t be found criminally responsible “for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing it was wrong.”

During the trial, Crown Prosecutor Louis Bouthillier has been arguing that not only did Magnotta commit these crimes, but that he had them planned well in advance — meaning he wasn’t acting in some temporary fit of insanity or during a breakdown.

But Bouthillier’s arguments may well be helping Magnotta’s defence, seeing as all of the things that he did speak to a person with serious mental-health issues.  The screening of the video on Thursday is a case in point — jury members could be infuriated by the images, pushing them to a guilty verdict; the other distinct possibility is that they may be convinced that only someone who’s stark raving mad could have done such things.

And Bouthillier seems to be leaving something aside: just because someone plans something out — however meticulously — does not mean they’re sane.

Probably the most famous case of the insanity defence is that of John Hinckley, Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Hinckley became obsessed with actress Jodie Foster after watching Martin Scorsese’s 1976 film Taxi Driver. He moved to New Haven, CT, so he could be closer to Foster, who was studying law at Yale. He actually phoned her for a time and sent her messages, but she did not respond. He then followed President Jimmy Carter around, but was arrested in Nashville on firearms charges and went back to his parents’ home. Despite psychiatric treatment, Hinckley again felt the inspiration of Travis Bickle (the protagonist in Taxi Driver) and went to Washington, D.C., where he actually managed to shoot then President Reagan, almost killing him.

But when the court delivered its verdict, despite all the careful planning Hinckley had clearly made, they found him not guilty by reason of insanity. The verdict was hugely controversial and had ramifications (three states abolished the defence from their law books altogether).

But consider that in recent years the idea of someone being not criminally responsible due to mental illness, the equivalent of the insanity defence, has had a good deal of traction in Canadian courts. When Tim McLean was beheaded on board a Manitoba bus in 2008, the ensuing trial of Vince Weiguang Li found the accused was found not criminally responsible. In 2009, a Quebec doctor, Guy Turcotte, stabbed his two children multiple times, killing them both. He too was deemed not criminally responsible due to his mental health and served a reduced sentence in a mental institution.

Both of these recent cases were met with outcries of injustice from the public — as was Hinckley’s — but they prove that courts can be swayed by the idea that someone simply isn’t responsible for their homicidal actions due to mental illness.

As the court continues to hear testimony from experts and see more evidence of the brutal killing of Jun Lin, it is a distinct possibility that the prosecution’s meticulous recounting of Magnotta’s actions may actually end up hindering their case, and helping the defence.

The question will be: is Magnotta akin to Norman Bates in Psycho (someone who was clearly mentally ill), or more like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs (sane and fully comprehending his actions and their impact)?

The trial continues today. ■

- See more at:



A shortened day today, with 3 quick witnesses.

Hubert Chrétien, son of former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, was also inadvertently made a player in the case when his name and Gatineau address appeared on a package mailed to Vancouver. image

He testified he was contacted by police who asked if he had sent any packages which he had not.  He never knew Magnotta at anytime so was stunned by the call.

Lori Homolka, who changed her name to Logan Valentini in 1996, told Magnotta’s first-degree murder trial Friday that police called her in 2012 asking if she had sent a package.  

Police wouldn’t tell Valentini any more details when they contacted her, so the Ste. Catherine’s resident searched online and saw the news about body parts showing up across the country.  “I was stunned and wondered why I’d be dragged into something once again that had nothing to do with me,” said Valentini, testifying from Kitchener, Ont.  Her sister, Karla Homolka, who was released from prison in 2005 after serving 12 years for manslaughter, is now living in Quebec and is married to Thierry Bordelais, Valentini told court.

Finally, Steve Fradette testified. Fradette works for Air Transat, the airline Magnotta took to Paris on the evening of Sat May 26th. He testified Magnotta booked his flight on Expedia, an online booking site, at 4:37pm on Fri May 25 2012 for $1080.50. This was a round trip ticket scheduled to return on June 1st, the return flight which he never took.  He sat in Seat 37A, had one suitcase and used his own passport with his real name, without any issues.  The flight left Montreal at 11:25pm Sat May 26 and landed in Paris at 12:27pm on Sun May 27.

Trial resumes Monday

TEAMLUKA.TUMBLR.COM  with files from Sue Montgomery / Montreal Gazette


DAY 12 - THURS OCT 16 - SUMMARY    -

First witness today is Rene Tremblay, the assistant manager at the Jean Coutu Pharmacy on Queen Mary in Snowdon. On May 29 2012, two officers came into the store asking about looking at some surveillance footage, due to a package that had been sent from their Canada Post outlet. Footage is stored for 45 days so they asked to see footage from May 25th around 7:00pm. Video is seen of Magnotta, wearing wig, placing two packages on the counter, having them weighed and processed. He pays cash for the shipping and leaves. Packages were shipped next business day, Monday at 10am. Police had a copy of the receipt for transaction printed at the time and it is submitted into evidence. End of crown questioning, Leclar cross examines. The video is re-shown. Exact time of Magnotta’s arrival is 7:12pm on May 25 2012, wearing wig, short sleeved shirt and jeans. Tremblay re-states the steps taken to mail the packages and the witness is finished. 

Next up, Tomokazu Lee, a Canada Post employee who encountered Magnotta twice on that Friday May 25th. First in the afternoon at 1:48pm, Magnotta returned 4 boxes on a receipt where 5 were purchased, stating they were too small, and then purchased two bigger boxes. Later at 7:12pm Magnotta returned to mail two larger boxes. On cross examination, Leclair confirmed mailing boxes are purchased individually, and that the medium sized boxes were purchased from him. Witness is finished.

Nadine Paoliello is the 19th witness for crown. A 12 year veteran, she is an investigator with ‘technological crimes’, like computer data, a support unit on the force. Paoliello was contacted the evening of May 29 2012 around 8pm, by email, from an Ottawa investigator regarding a murder video. There were 2 links, the first to a video called 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick from a site called BestGore, and a second site called Heaven666 hosting a video called ‘Time To Shake Things Up’ (same video as the first under a different name). They also discovered the video was on a video site called YNC. After reviewing the videos they contacted the hosting providers in an attempt to obtain ip address info of the uploaders, as well as requesting the video be taken down. Break for lunch.

After lunch, it appears the overflow rooms are packed with curious seekers to watch the 1 Lunatic video. A constable tells them to raise their hand if they feel nauseous (seriously? they don’t know what they’re getting into?). Regardless, testimony continues with Nadine Paoliello. Paoliello confirms they received some responses from the websites who had the video. Heaven666 provided ip addresses they had on file for the uploader onto their site. The YNC site advised they pulled the video off their site. At the same time, police were investigating the many facebook accounts for a Luka Magnotta. It was also discovered there was a copy uploaded privately on Youtube, not accessable through search engine. The video on Youtube was 27 seconds longer than the other copies.  (In case you’re wondering, there was always 2 ‘versions’ of the video floating around. The original, contained a beginning with a title “1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick”and a cut to a picture of a person wearing a purple hoodie holding a weapon, before going into the actual scene in with the individul is bound on the bed. As well, at the end of the video, the picture is shown again of the purple hoodie individual. Subsequent versions, cut out the introduction and ending portions just described, for reasons unknown). Bestgore did not cooperate with authorities, according to testimony.

At this point, the video is shown in court. Version shown was the more widely available copy that had the beginning and end parts cut. Allegedly, some people leave the overflow room. Some reporters on twitter describe in graphic detail the various scenes in the video, others do not. The song “True Faith” by New Order plays as a soundtrack to the various shocking activities. The face of the person committing the acts in the video is never seen. No unusual reaction from the jury to the video, as per twitter reports. Magnotta appeared to look down at the ground rather than watch. Video ends, and they decide to take their afternoon break now. After the break, the crown wraps up by verifying the source of this copy was Heaven666 but it is noted the copy also had the ‘ync’ floating marking on it as well, so it was originally sourced from there.

With that, Luc Leclair cross examines for the defence. Magnotta continues to mainly look down at the floor, unattentive. Leclair first asks if she’s aware the song in the video was played on the tv show ‘Queer As Folk’, she did not know this, never seen the show. Leclair asked why this version was shown, witness advised this was the first version she saw, and ultimately only version remianing after a personal computer crash. Paoliello verifies her role was to investigate the video online to try and locate it’s origin and original uploader. The video had 3 different names floating around online attached to it, 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick, Time To Shake Things Up A Bit and One Sick Ice Pick (YNC title). Next up, Leclair questions Paoliello about her knowledge of internet technical data, such as IP addresses, domain names, browsers and proxy servers, all of which she is well versed in.

Defence finishes and Crown requests to start their next witness tomorrow. Judge agrees, end of Day 12.



DAY 11 - WEDS OCT 15 - SUMMARY    -

Prévost is still testifying. Crown was finished so Luc Leclair cross examines.

Gloves are donned and first up to discuss is the “Wish For Love” wine bottle found in the garbage. Prévost said a sample was taken around the opening of the bottle and DNA of Lin only, was found. Not necessarily saliva, but the bottle did somehow come into contact with his body. Next, the Casablanca poster. DNA samples were taken from front and back and there was a blood stain on the front. (No results were mentioned). Then discussion goes back to the cleaning up of blood. There was blood smeared on the handle of bathroom door, but could have been just a contact smear, not necessarily due to cleaning up. In the bathroom, there was diluted blood on the side of sink, as well as traces of residual blood in the tub and on shower curtain. Certainly the furthest thing from a perfect cleanup. Back to the kitchen, there were no signs of cleaning on the kitchen counter, but of course there was dried liquid blood in the fridge. No evidence of blood on stove or in the drawer underneath. Kitchen table had a blood stain, there was no blood on the lemon juice bottle, but DNA of two people found on it, Magnotta “can’t be excluded” from those two profiles. After verification about the bed sheets not fitting right and the stain on the mattress, Leclair finishes, and witness is done.

Montreal Police investigator Antonio Paradiso is the next witness, the Crown’s 15th. Paradiso is a 27 year veteran with 12 years on the major crimes unit. image

On May 29 2012 he was on scene at 5720 Boul Decarie regarding the torso found in the suitcase. After speaking with the janitor and landlord, he began analyzing the surveillance tapes from the building. He also went to the Jean Coutu pharmacy on Queen Mary to look into their surveillance tapes as it was believed the human foot sent to Ottawa originated from there. (Later he discovered he had a match with the suspect in the pharmacy footage). Paradiso watched the video sporadically at the crime scene, but did not see it until the end. He also went to the apt of Lin, and retrieved two toothbrushes and a pepsi bottle, and spoke to a friend of Lin’s regarding a missing person’s report. On May 31 2012, Paradiso discovered the accused was scheduled to return to Montreal June 1st on Air Transat Flight 411. After searching all passengers upon arrival, Magnotta was not on the flight. Dong Dong Xu, the friend of Lin, advised he thought it was Lin in the internet video. Paradiso visited Lin’s workplace (dep), where the boss advised he last worked on May 24. Met with parents of Lin on June 6 who had arrived from China. Took oral swab for DNA and comparing with samples from victim was able to confirm identity of victim Lin.

On July 1, 2012, Paradiso noticed a fax from a law office in Ontario. The three page fax from lawyer Raphael Feldstein said “you may find what you’re looking for by following these directions”. “Exit subway, walk thru parking lot, by bottom of pond…,on the right, by tall grass, two feet from water”.  

Paradiso arrived at Angrignon park at 10am. The item they were looking for was the head. At 3:10pm, an officer from Longueuil assisted the search with a canine dog, and the head was found at 4:40pm. Paradiso went to Berlin to arrest and extradite Magnotta back to Canada. They arrived back on Monday June 18 2012, two weeks to the day after the initial arrest in the internet cafe.  == End of direct, Leclair cross examines ==

Cross examination by Leclair. A quick review of how he arrived on scene on May 29 2012. Paradiso advised he was unaware the press went into the apartment before police did. They did not have an i.d. of the body or any suspect at the time of discovery. When asked how Magnotta first became a possible suspect, Paradiso advised after going through a list of the tenants at the building, someone described some pieces of paper found in trash with his name on it, and it clicked. At first, Magnotta was considered as possibly the victim. 6 police officers (including Paradiso) and a psychiatrist flew to Berlin to pick up Magnotta.

Paradiso first met Magnotta when he was brought to the plane on Mon June 18 2:20pm local time. He escorted him up the stairs, brought him to the back of plane and formally arrested him. Magnotta had a slip of paper advising he had already spoken to a lawyer and would remain silent. His hands and feet were shackled, and he was placed in seat 27 E. Magnotta had two meals and had two washroom breaks during the 6-7 hour flight. There was essentially no conversation, he was quiet and cooperative, and slept through most of the flight.  == End of cross examination - witness is done ==

Next witness is the Crown’s 16th, Catherine Lavallée, a forensic toxicologist. As they begin to review Lavallée’s resume, Leclair advises he was not given sufficient notice of this witness, which the crown admits. Leclair asks for break for lunch and it is granted. After lunch, and some questioning by the defence, she proceeds as a witness. Two toxicology reports are submitted into evidence, dated Oct 11 2012 and March 14 2013. Samples from various parts of the body such as the stomach, spleen, liver and kidney were sent for analysis. Two substances were found in the liver and stomach, Temazepam (sleeping pill) and Benadryl. Temazepam is usually prescription only, but can be ordered off the internet (illegally). It is advised not to be taken with alcohol. End of direct, defense cross examines.image

During cross examination, it was testified that it’s impossible to say what the concentration of drugs was at time of death or shortly after. There also was no way to determine whether the drugs were taken voluntarily or not. There was no blood (volume) or urine samples available to test.  

End of cross examination and end of testimony for the day.

One last note, but a very important one. It was announced today to a stunned courthouse that Magnotta defense team lawyer Pierre Panaccio passed away on Sunday Oct 12 due to health issues. He was 61. Friends and colleagues described Panaccio as a passionate advocate who was not afraid to rise and tell the court if he was unhappy, even if they didn’t like it. He believed in protecting the rights of everyone and was passionate about law. Although Panaccio had not been seen in court recently regarding the case, he had been working behind the scenes continuously, and had been with this case since it’s inception, even predating Luc Leclair’s arrival.   image



DAY 10 - TUES OCT 14 - SUMMARY    -

First witness today was Montreal police constable Peter Devola. Devola was called to the scene at 1:00pm on May 29 2012. Assisting in collecting of evidence outside building until 6:30pm, at which time he entered Apt 208.  Devola was the first person to enter Apt 208 in relation to investigation. Upon entering, there was a very strong chemical smell as well as the odour of a cadaver, which he recognized from past experience.  image

Checked the bathroom, then the kitchen and living room. Kitchen table had a bottle of lemon juice on it, as well as some red substance, possibly blood. image

There was an oversized sheet covering the bed that looked too big to fit. The door to the balcony/patio was unlocked. Devola then left the apt.  Crown is done, Leclair cross examines. Photos are shown to the witness.  Leclair asks about the bed covering, Devola suggests maybe someone bought it quickly. Devola did not notice the writing on the wall in the closet, or the hat on the shelf. He verified his role was looking for victims or the suspect. He testified the chemical smell was very potent, stronger than Javel. Being as the patio door was unlocked, anybody could have entered it, Leclair questioned. Devola advised only from another apartment as nobody would have tried to climb up onto second floor balconies from the front as the Decarie is a busy street with lots of visibility and someone would have surely noticed. Devola confirmed he never opened fridge or went out onto balcony. He said the red stain on table did not appear to have been cleaned very well. Witness is finished.

Next up is the 14th crown witness Jacynthe Prévost, a forensic biologist with 18 years experience.  image

Her roll is to analyze biological liquids (identifying blood, sperm). She has testified 10 times a year for the last 17 years as an expert witness. Prévost was on scene on May 30 2012 for 2.5 hours. After speaking with officers outside, and watching the video inside the bus at the command station setup outside the building, she went into the apartment. She chose to watch the video 2 times to possibly assist in analyzing blood or to see if the scene had been modified or changed.  Upon entering the apt, photos were taken first, then samples began being taken, using Q-tips and Luminol, a product which makes blood stains show up even after being cleaned.  Prévost testified the apartment was empty of personal effects, except a hat, bed cover and shower curtain. Blood stains were found on the bathroom sink, shower curtain and inside the fridge. There were blood spots on the wall around the bed and a lot of blood under the bed sheets. In all, she examined 94 pieces of evidence for blood stain analysis. There was DNA of three men in the apartment. Jun Lin, Luka Magnotta and a third unidentified person, which was found on a toothbrush.

Photos are examined in court. No blood found on front door/handle, but blood found on bathroom door appearing to be a stain as if someone touched it and left stain. Blood found on the sink, floor, tub and shower curtain. Water may have diluted blood streaming down on the side of the sink. DNA was a match of the victim in all blood samples found in the apartment. Blood stains all around bathtub, as well as strands of hair. Inside the fridge and freezer, blood found on the grill, the shelf as well as on and inside the crisper drawer. On the kitchen table, a bottle of lemon juice, and blood stains partially cleaned on the table. In the living room/bedroom area, mostly smeared blood stains, but not necessarily due to cleaning. A blood stain on the front of the closet door appears to be as a result of brushed contact by a person. Blood stain on the coffee table, 3 drops on the wall by the chest of drawers, droplets on patio door, as well as on the radiator and window ledge. The amount of blood near the foot of the bed shows that is where a violent blow took place. On the top of the bed, a seemingly new brown covering was on it, based on the crisp pleats on it. Underneath was a burgundy shower curtain hiding a very large blood stain on the mattress. There was a rotting smell and white stains around it, possibly by cleaning. Under the mattress was another sheet on the box spring, with lots of blood on it. Using the Luminol product to reveal cleaned up blood stains, footprints were found around the bed and smeared blood in the one corner, as well as blood on the sofa. The kitchen floor and the bathroom both reacted strongly. The blood on the bathroom floor and in the tub was partially cleaned. The hall and closet did not react to the Luminol.  == Lunch break ==

After lunch, Jacinthe Prévost’s testimony continues, with direct from the crown. DNA results are discussed. A large purple tablecloth found in a plastic bag, had blood and strands of hair, but had no recoverable DNA because it had been outside exposed to hot temperature. On the mattress, the large blood stain contained the victim’s DNA. A big black towel contained Magnotta’s DNA as well as another unidentified person. Sperm stains tested matched DNA of magnotta plus another unidentified person, but not the victim. (Note: Lin’s DNA was obtained from a straw and toothbrush in HIS apartment, then used to cross-match samples from the scene). The Wine bottle and the Casablanca poster contained Lin’s DNA. The black hat in the closet had Magnotta’s DNA on it. The purple hoodie contained sperm on the left side matching Magnotta’s, and blood stains matching Lin. Black pants contained sperm DNA match with Magnotta, waist area had profile DNA of both Lin and Magnotta. Yellow with black motif t-shift had blood stains, no DNA match.

White tshirt soaked with large blood stain of human, no DNA profile as blood was too old. A salmon polo short had sperm stains matching DNA of Magnotta. A Jock strap had DNA profile of Magnotta and possibly two other men but not Lin. Two knives that were very dirty and had fatty skin residue on it were tested, had DNA of Lin. A screwdriver had no blood stain or DNA profile. A pair of scissors, two surgical gloves and razor blades had no DNA profile. Blood stains on the head of hammer and another screwdriver, as well as skin residue on the angle-saw match the DNA of Lin. Black and white baseball cap contained a blood stain but came back negative, other DNA found on it contained 3 different people, one of them Magnotta. On a pair of sneakers, blood droplets on the right shoe matched Lin. A brown wig contained no profile. The black hair from the skull and bag were not analyzed, and two teeth and bones from skull were not analyzed due to advanced decomposition. Mickey Mouse Tshirt contained a sperm stain on front matching Magnotta.

To conclude, a general summary states the victim’s blood was found all over the apartment and on a number of objects within it, or in the garbage bags. This concludes today, crown will continue with this witness Weds morning at 9:30am.

Her DNA report was filed March 1, 2013.



DAY 9 - FRI OCT 10 - SUMMARY    -

After the regular occuring pre-morning closed door arguments, Yann Dazé continues his direct testimony with the crown. It is short and sweet, as Dazé testifies that there were no signs Lin tried to defend himself, and he added decomposition of the body can erase any possible marks left behind from being tied up.

Now Leclair is up to cross examine.

Cross examination begins. Leclair discusses the meeting Dazé had with the investigators in September. He asks why a ballistics expert was brought in to make the angle-cutter saw work (the blade was not rotating when he first examined it). Dazé responded he had no opinion on the matter, referred Leclair to the expert. The subject of the video comes up. Dazé had mentioned yesterday he never watched the video, as he sees enough disgusting things in his job. “How can you say the video is disgusting if you didn’t watch it?” Leclair asked.  The witness went on to say he can’t authenticate the video, he relies on the actual autopsy itself. Police had provided him still images, but it was the police’s assertion they were authentic, not his. “My expertise lies in forensic pathology, not videos”, when Leclair pressed on not watching the video to gather as much info as possible. Leclair has suggested Dazé’s decision to not watch the video demonstrates incompetence. Dazé disagrees with the suggestion, and they end the exchange on that subject.

Next, a photo of the vertabrae is shown on the projector, but the line where the dismemberment took place cannot be seen, so Leclair asks if there is a better photo, which there is not. Switching gears, the angle-saw is pulled out of the box. Leclair asks Dazé to handle it with gloves, but he refuses, not wanting to contaminate it. Leclairs turns on the saw, creating an ear-splitting noise, then Dazé describes how such a tool would cut skin or muscle, would require some force. The saw is put away. Next up, the hammer. Leclair begins to use the hammer on the table at various levels of force, demonstrating possible damage it could do. Dazé said he believes the hammer was used on the victim, based on doing over 1500 autopsies. The damage inflicted would have required more than one blow. 

There is a short break, and in a bizarre moment, the witness asks for another carafe (pitcher) of water, worried the one he has may have been contaminated by the hammer. After break, they wrap up the cross examination by verifiying a few points about other autopsies performed recently. Dazé is dismissed.

Quick discussion with lawyers without jury present, then jury re-enters and Judges wishes them a Happy Thanksgiving weekend, and we will reconvene on Tuesday. End of Day 9.


DAY 8 - THURS OCT 9 - SUMMARY    -  by:

Luc Leclair continues his cross examination of Frank Rubert. Magnotta was not nervous when they passed police on the street. Rubert’s credibility is called into question again, in regards to activites with Magnotta and how much alcohol was consumed. Further questioning on his financial situation, his earnings and welfare state.  Contradictions were pointed out between his testimony to the police and his testimony in court. After the defense finishes, Rubert requests to make a statement to the court, but the judge denies this. He is dismissed.

Next up, Crown witness #12, who is Yann Daze, a pathologist, who autopsied Jun Lin’s body. The autopsy was done on 5 different days, mainly due to the fact various body parts were received on different days. Daze was familiar with the news that body parts had been found in a suitcase and mailed to various locations. He had never seen the video that was online, only 10 police photos they provided. Autopsy began on June 1, 2012 of parts found in garbage bags and torso discovered in grey suitcase. On June 8, 2012 he then received the missing feet and hands of the body. The head was received on July 3, 2012, it was in a mummified state. Injuries to the body appear to have done both before and after death occured.

The specific injuries were discussed. The neck injuries show the throat was cut, but unable to determine if it was before or after death. Up to 4 different weapons were used on the body. It is probable the spinal cord was cut with a saw, as it is almost impossible to cut with a knife. The upper chest contained 37 stab wounds, the lower chest/stomach contained 18 stab wounds, all made by a pointy sharp object. 4 wounds around the abdomen. 5 wounds to the upper right back and 2 on the upper left. Left buttock had a piece missing. There were 2 wounds on the right arm, 9 wounds on the right leg and 3 wounds on the left leg. The genitals were untouched. There was a tear to the anus on the right side, likely by a blunt object, and the coccyx (end of spinal cord) was fractured. Injuries to the head included left side eye, cheekbone and temple, extensive blunt force trauma in a semi circular fracture, likely by the head of a hammer. The dismemberment itself happened after death had occured. There were cuts at the shoulders, thighs, wrists and ankles.

Individual weapons that were found in garbage were pulled out to show Daze. First the angle grinder saw, which Daze said it could have been used, as it is often used in autopsies to cut skulls. The screwdriver with star tip is next, and could have been used for the stab wounds. A kitchen knife with a black handle would have been able to cut tissues but not bone. A hammer is shown, which may have been used to strike the victim in the head, and break bones on the body. There was no brain trauma or injuries to internal organs. Traces of a sleeping pill (Temazepam) and allergy medication (Benadryl) were found in the body.

At this point Leclair voiced some objections, first to Daze mentioning that a date-rape type of drug can hasten decomposition (there was no date rape drug present), and  secondly, when the crown asked what defense wounds are. At this point, the judge dismissed the jury for the day and the crown and defence will address the objections for the rest of the afternoon. Since the jury was not present, it cannot be reported. Daze will continue his testimony tomorrow, as it has been decided they will have a session this friday as well.

On a side note, it was earlier stated the autopsy report was signed off and dated July 19, 2012.
compiled by :

Various photos - 1) the last known snapshot of Luka, in the Berlin apartment, prior to his arrest.  2) a sheet with french phrases found in contents of Paris hotel room  3) U of Toronto ID card found in toilet of Paris hotel room

The chat transcript between Frank Rubert and Luka Magnotta arranging to meet in Berlin.  The blacked out email address Luka was using was shown in another source of the document, at the bottom.  Note the date on the transcript as Thurs May 31 - meaning Magnotta arrived morning of Fri June 1 2012, not Thursday as testified.



The witness today is Frank Rubert, the crown’s 11th witness. Rubert is a 53 year old self employed caregiver for seniors in Berlin. Rubert housed Magnotta while he stayed in Berlin. Rubert had placed ads on various sites and chatrooms including GayRomeo, where he submitted an ad looking for a roomate. Magnotta contacted him via this profile and they began to chat, using Google translate. This was on Thurs May 31 2012 (as per the chat transcripts, the witness initially said Wednesday but that is incorrect). Magnotta claimed to be 22 years old and said he was from Paris, and wanted to come to Berlin to meet Rubert, so Rubert said yes, and he was scheduled to come in the next morning. Bus arrived at 11am Fri June 1 2012.  Magnotta walked up to Rubert, wearing blue jeans, a black top, long hair parted in the middle (wig), carried a black shoulder bag (laptop bag type). They travelled by subway to Rubert’s house, not speaking much, due to language barrier. Once they arrived, they would communicate by google translate. Rubert advised Magnotta long hair was not in fashion in Germany, and that he would have to dress differently, get some new clothes. Magnotta went into the washroom for 15 mins and came out saying “Frank, I cut my hair” (actually just removed the wig). Magnotta advised he had maybe 4,000 - 5,000 Euros on him, so shopping for new clothes was no problem. The two of them headed to Karl Marx Strasse and into shops. Bought pants, underwear, T-shirts, then headed back. During conversation, Magnotta said he didn’t have a passport but his friend had one, that he came from Paris to Berlin because his bf had left him and wanted to make a new start. Rubert testified the two never had sex as Magnotta was not his type, even with changing his look. Magnotta stayed with him until the morning of June 4 2012. Rubert took 5 photos of Magnotta in his place, including one naked (not showing head), as Magnotta wanted to make a new profile on GayRomeo. In the evenings they went out to bars and restaurants. Magnotta would talk to some others in the bars at times. He would carry a lot of cash on him. Magnotta apparently went through his money very fast, so he wanted to resume work as escort on Gay Romeo site. Rubert was not attracted so Magnotta, so he wasn’t interested in having him stay, but in the meantime, he would take care of him.

On the morning of Mon June 4th, Rubert told Magnotta that he needed to go out and he couldn’t stay alone in the apartment so he had to go out too. The two left the apartment together and Rubert explained how he could take the subway and buy a ticket. Rubert told Magnotta he could go into an Internet cafe and he’d be back in 2-3 hours. Gave him his biz card with his address on it, and a cellphone to which Magnotta could give it to a German person to call him if needed. Rubert got back on the subway and began to read German newspaper Bildzeitung.  Noticed an article on 2nd page with picture resembling Magnotta. Rubert phoned a friend to discuss article, and called police. He went over to the police station to speak with them, telling them he may have a murderer staying with him. The police had him wait, then came in a while later to tell him “we have him already”. After waiting at the police station for approximately 2 hours, they took Rubert back to his apartment, where they photographed evidence and took Magnotta’s belongings.  When police checked the bag they pulled out the wig. It was then Rubert realized there was no haircut in the bathroom, just a removal of the wig. He realized he was ‘stupid’ to let just anyone come stay at his place, not knowing who he was. The police wished him a “happy birthday” advising he could have been next. The bag and it’s contents, as well as other items Magnotta purchased in Berlin, were sealed and taken by police. Magnotta’s bag is shown in court to the jury. It is a shiny black shoulder bag. The bag contained the wig, a folded map of Paris, a bus ticket from Paris to Berlin dated May 31 2012, electric shaver, nail clippers, adapter plug, pen, pencil and condom. The name on the bag and ticket was Kirk Tramell with a New York address.  Rubert also pointed out Magnotta’s laptop was password protected, and he never saw him take any medication.   Lunch break.

Leclair cross examines Rubert after lunch. He confronts Rubert about an article appearing in the Bild newspaper end of September 2014, in which a feature story was done on him and the fact he has to tesify at the trial. They then return back to when he chatted with Magnotta prior to meeting. “Did no one tell you you couldn’t give interviews about your testimony from the rogatory commission??” Leclair asks. “Two days ago, Cdn embassy in Berlin told me I shouldn’t talk about this case”, he replies. The article refers to the two of them going to a brothel, yet this was never testified, Leclair finds that odd. Leclair suggests Rubert was so drunk he doesn’t properly remember his time with Magnotta. Rubert verifies a phony name was used for him for the article (Bernd S.). Next up Leclair reveals Rubert has a lengthy criminal record from long ago, including 9 counts of theft in 1980, to which he served 9 months. As well as various other fraud assault and sexual assault with a minor (1996, 2 years in jail), and in 1997, again convicted of sex with a minor, with violence. Got 4 years this time. Committed to psychiatric hospital. “I did what I had to do not to go to jail, like you want to do for your client” was his response to being committed to a psychiatric hospital. Leclair asks if he has over 100 convictions. Rubert says possibly 100 judgements… “I’m not that old”. (?)  After a bit more of a tense exchange, a short break.

After the break, cross examination continues. Rubert verifies that Magnotta paid for everything those four days: meals, taxis. Rubert said he could save his own money. When he was arrested he had 200 - 300 Euros on him. A bit more arguing about initially saying Magnotta could stay with him as long as he wanted vs wanting to get rid of him as soon as possible.  End of day 7.