[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...there was quite a bit that was glossed over, I thought...like the police involvement...it was only fleetingly mentioned that the police had been informed...so it felt a little like a ‘game’...but they had informed the police, jurisdiction was obviously an issue...I felt a little that when the vid of Jun Lin was posted...yes, there was shock and terror etc...but also a little element of...’I told them, I TOLD THEM and LOOK...’...which was taking a more centre stage to a human being brutally killed ...

Apparently their contact with the police was "an email" (to some detective who was on vacation at the time). I would like to think that if I had tracked someone down who was killing animals and uploading it to the internet, I, or one of the people in that group, would've been a little more persistent than "one email".

The more I think about it I feel the documentary's been made to absolve the group of their feelings of guilt. Because let's face it: Magnotta's arrest was done with pretty much no involvement from them. He wasn't even found guilty of the cat/dog crimes. He left behind a ridiculous crime scene and every piece of incriminating evidence he could've done (perhaps because he wanted, or a part of his mind wanted, to be caught), was using his own name abroad in booking hotels... he would've been caught without this group's work. And the more I consider this, the more I find myself appalled by the documentary's tone; that it was some supposed vigilante Facebook group that "knew what he was going to do" but... did next to nothing in actually stopping him. Because it's easier to blame the police and say they weren't taken seriously.

And the persistent sense of gratification they get from making connections to his online presence and what certain aspects of the crime involved (the names of his aliases, the films he was inspired by, the tracking down of specific streetlights) just smacks of the popcorn-investigation the documentary so dismissively criticises.