At the very end of the three part series one of the main interviewees asked if we, the viewers, are complicit in making this man into a serial killer. She seems to accept a certain responsibility by (perhaps) goading the killer with her internet activity in regard to him, the killer.
Her group becomes obsessed with hunting the killer and in a way provided the killer a fanclub. At the end she asks if we, the viewers of the documentary, are not complicit in his crime also. I say we are not.
She provided no startlingly profound commentary on the human condition. It is a known that society has a morbid curiosity with serial killers. What her and her friends did was provide this serial killer a direct fanclub.
The internet sleuths early on get a lead, from some mysterious source, which gives them the name of a suspect. This is important. What I do not understand is why the documentary never goes back to this. Who was behind this mystery Facebook message that revealed the name, Luca Magnotta? Was it Magnotta himself? Due to his apparent narcissism he is a likely candidate. If this is the case he likely could have, just as easily, tried to get in touch with the newspaper like past serial killers to play his cat and mouse game.
The Facebook group provided nothing more than a fan club for Magontta in his killing. If Magnotta is not the one which revealed the name, however, then it is someone who easily could have gone to the police, which is a step they likely should have taken regardless. Ultimately to the two main internet sleuths, I say: do not pawn your guilt off on us unsuspecting viewers; you provide no profound commentary on the human condition by saying we are complicit due to our morbid curiosity with serial killers; you provided a fanclub which the serial killer had direct contact with, which gave him exactly what he wanted.
The question for these types of events (e.g. mass shooters and serial killers) getting publicity and whether it is right is nothing new. You internet sleuths, however, are directly responsible for providing him attention.
One more important detail they left off was who filmed inside the workplace (casino) of the one internet sleuth? I don't see how Magnotta could have done it. Was it a fellow Facebook group member messing with her? Or was it her trying to make it more dramatic, trying to get attention, et cetera. They never go back to it. It seems out of place and random, and it never gets answered as to where this video comes from.
Ultimately, all the internet sleuths provide is an interesting narrative to give this documentary more depth. The other narratives from the police, attorneys, psychologist, mother are interesting as well. But these internet sleuths provided nothing of actual substance. They tried to make them seem interesting, and important with their "detective work" but the key info they received was from an anonymous source which literally gave them the name of the person.
Her group becomes obsessed with hunting the killer and in a way provided the killer a fanclub. At the end she asks if we, the viewers of the documentary, are not complicit in his crime also. I say we are not.
She provided no startlingly profound commentary on the human condition. It is a known that society has a morbid curiosity with serial killers. What her and her friends did was provide this serial killer a direct fanclub.
The internet sleuths early on get a lead, from some mysterious source, which gives them the name of a suspect. This is important. What I do not understand is why the documentary never goes back to this. Who was behind this mystery Facebook message that revealed the name, Luca Magnotta? Was it Magnotta himself? Due to his apparent narcissism he is a likely candidate. If this is the case he likely could have, just as easily, tried to get in touch with the newspaper like past serial killers to play his cat and mouse game.
The Facebook group provided nothing more than a fan club for Magontta in his killing. If Magnotta is not the one which revealed the name, however, then it is someone who easily could have gone to the police, which is a step they likely should have taken regardless. Ultimately to the two main internet sleuths, I say: do not pawn your guilt off on us unsuspecting viewers; you provide no profound commentary on the human condition by saying we are complicit due to our morbid curiosity with serial killers; you provided a fanclub which the serial killer had direct contact with, which gave him exactly what he wanted.
The question for these types of events (e.g. mass shooters and serial killers) getting publicity and whether it is right is nothing new. You internet sleuths, however, are directly responsible for providing him attention.
One more important detail they left off was who filmed inside the workplace (casino) of the one internet sleuth? I don't see how Magnotta could have done it. Was it a fellow Facebook group member messing with her? Or was it her trying to make it more dramatic, trying to get attention, et cetera. They never go back to it. It seems out of place and random, and it never gets answered as to where this video comes from.
Ultimately, all the internet sleuths provide is an interesting narrative to give this documentary more depth. The other narratives from the police, attorneys, psychologist, mother are interesting as well. But these internet sleuths provided nothing of actual substance. They tried to make them seem interesting, and important with their "detective work" but the key info they received was from an anonymous source which literally gave them the name of the person.