I am not trying to go on and on about this but it is VERY IMPORTANT to me from a legal standpoint as to whether they actually see his face on that video and I see NO REASON for the use of the words MAY HAVE unless it is wrt the fact that they arent certain WHO ATE THE BODY PARTS.
Does anyone follow me here or am I crazy?
I argue semantics for a living so maybe I am just being anal here but what I say above is the proper use of my language.
*WARNING...don't read what I posted below if you don't want to hear video details.*
No, you're not crazy, but I think I understand why they, the police, use the words, "may have." It's clearly insinuated, in the video, that a body part is eaten, but does not actually show anything being eaten.
I'm not trying to be graphic here, but more objective in explaining. I watched the video only one time, but I clearly remember it showed the body part being cut with a knife and fork and then, eventually, the fork was lifted to what looks like the murderer's face, but it does not actually show the face. The fork with the body part on it then disappears out of the shot. It leaves you with the impression that the murderer just ate the body part on the fork. The reality is that you just can't tell if he ate it or not.
However, in the video next, there was some movement and you could see the fork again, almost like the murderer's arm slipped a little and you could just see the fork that still contained the body part; therefore, it was still uneaten at that point and is then never seen again. I'm not going to watch it again, but maybe someone else remembers this too??
The only reason I clearly remember this is because when I read your post it brought to light my immediate reaction of watching that part of the video and that was that the cannibalism part looked staged to me, and the guy doing the video didn't actually eat what was on the fork, but wanted to leave the impression he did. Maybe the police came to this same conclusion. Basically, if what I saw is what they saw, I"m not sure you could prove anything was eaten by the aggressor.
IMO the whole video just looks staged. Ironically as this sounds, it doesn't possess what many might perceive as real sadistic lashing out. It just doesn't makes sense that if someone gets off on torture, why would they torture someone that has already passed? The psychology folks can chime in on that and maybe explain it.
As I mentioned in another post, it looks as though the victim was already passed before anything is done to him, and as someone else mentioned, the actual stabbing didn't look overly intense, I think he/she said it looked whimpy. It looks like poor acting out and staging. But regardless, that certainly does not reduce it's perversity, but it might help professionals understand the nature of the crime and criminal better.