Luigi was framed.
Luigi Mangione
A community to post anything related to Luigi Mangione.
This is not a pro-murder community. Please respect Lemmy.world ToS.
Christ, imagine if he really was set up after all this?
Or that the charges don't stick?
People have been saying since he was announced as a suspect that he didn't look like the shooter that appeared on the cameras. He sort of looks like him but it's really not that clear cut that it's definitely him
Also it couldn't have been Luigi, he has an alibi. We were hanging out that day.
Mm that's weird I definitely remember him being at my dad's birthday party
yeah don't you remember? you, me, Glimse@lemmy.world, and Luigi were all at your dad's birthday party since the night before, we even helped get it set up.
Even if he's really the shooter, imagine if they cannot prove it's him because it would showcase the immense dystopian surveillance tech everywhere in the US. So they had to pretend they got an anonymous call and plant evidence instead.
He also allegedly had the manifesto with him, which makes no sense. Basically they just said "We randomly got a tip for this guy at mc donalds and he happened to have all possible pieces of evidence on him days after making a clean get away" mmm yeeah sure.....
And ‘oh, by the way’, we botched the arrest and search and there are some real questions about chain of custody, the search itself, and the evidence. Then there’s the ~~ease~~ (edit: ‘eaves’) dropping on his privileged communication with his attorney… clown show over here.
My pragmatic theory:
- He is the guy (I’m not saying it’s a bad thing)
- The “anonymous tip” was rather “illegal surveillance/tech us plebs don’t know about”
- Police found the gun and manifesto in NYC, and they planted it on him to ensure an easier conviction
At this point the funniest thing would be if the real assassin was to take down another healthcare CEO.
Someone, can't remember who...so if it's you (not necessarily you OP, a general you) put your hand up, in a different Luigi thread a month or so ago had a pet theory that I think probably holds a reasonable amount of water.
The theory is that that CEO was knocked off by a paid hitman, possibly contracted by his spouse, and Luigi happened to be picked up as a scapegoat because the NYPD, or the arresting officer, was complicit/paid off a tidy sum.
With this coming up, it's even less of an unlikely scenario.
Jokes aside, I honestly don't know if he's the guy.
What I do know, is if this part is true, that should be enough to put doubt into the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part in the jury.
I just point blank don't believe he did it.
Let's say I kill a high profile individual on the street you know, hypothetically.
Do you seriously believe that I'd be casually hanging out in public at a McDonalds with a manifesto and loaded gun in my bag? I'm pretty sure that my first port of call if I was assassinating someone would be "Burn all the evidence in an alleyway somewhere, get new clothes on, and lay low for pretty much the rest of my fucking life, possibly in Mexico"
Not only that, Luigi's fake ID which he did not use in an illegal way any known time was not linked with the shooting, just linked to a NY hostel.
Also Luigi was not marandised, hes also charged in NY, Pennsylvania and federally at the same time, double (triple?) jeopardy
And his bags were searched without him being able to see the search, which puts into question the search, but they didn't find any gun or manifesto at that time. 6 hours later, they did find a gun and a manifesto after being contact with NYPD. And the paper work for this evidence is also not properly filed. In addition the inventory of his belonging was also not descriptive.
He was arrested by a rookie cop that didn't get help from a supervisor to avoid mistakes either, lots of adrenaline in a huge profile case like this. He said he knew right away that this was the killer, and he had only the propaganda NYPD had posted to the media. And NYPD didn't know who the killer was
I dont know how long it took, but it took well over 100 days before the defence was able to even see the evidence against him. A huge red flag that the prosecution dont think the evidence holds water. And when they did get it, it was terabytes of data, and Luigi wasn't allowed to use a computer without hus lawyer present, blocking him from seeing what weaksauce they have against him
The aid to the prosecutor also listened in, they say it was an accident to a whole telephone conversation with Luigi and the lawyer, how is this even possible. The prosecutor rebuked him self from the case after they were caught doing this, so they do a new prosecutor
The feds even call for the death penalty before Luigi is even indited, let alone convinced.
I'm just very skeptical this is the shooter, why would they screw up everything so bad every step on puropuse like this. Its just a hail Mary that the judge who is married to a CEO will convict anyway
He's an example of the difference in outcomes between a competent attorney focused solely on your own defense and some public defender that didn't know you'd be their client until five minutes before trial.
Whether or not he did it, the real outcome of this court case appears to be reaffirming that the ~~NYPD~~ local Pennsylvania PD simply cannot be trusted to do any kind of investigation of a crime or evidence handling even in the most high-profile cases.
Well that sure is weird.
No jury Nullification needed. It looks like it really was a frame job. Can't wait to see this case unfold.
Wow, imagine being the cop that fucked this up this hard.
I don't think they could avoid fucking it up. Planting a fucking gun isn't that easy :D
I mean, I guess it depends on how late in the season you plant it and how many gun seeds you have.
Getting arrested in Pennsyltucky by imbreds was a genius move.
Let's say that Mangione committed the crime.
My understanding is that he gave cops a fake ID when they questioned him on reasonable suspicion (the basis of which was a tip from an employee). That is something that yes, he can be arrested for. And he can be personally searched after that arrest. But at that point, he can no longer get a gun out of his bag, and cops have control of it, so he can't destroy evidence/get a weapon from it; so searching the bag should be out at that time. So, my understanding, based on case law, is that they would have needed a warrant to search it at that time, as the contents of the bag aren't related to the reason he's been arrested. You aren't supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person's car or belongings (e.g., arrest you for suspicion of drunk driving, then search your car to find evidence of burglaries).
In theory, without the warrant, the search and everything from the search should be out. Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack, it should be completely excluded from the case. I'm sure that the DA is going to argue that there's some exception that allows a warrantless search, but I can't say what that argument will be. If the evidence is allowed in, his defense attorney is going to have to object every single time that prosecutors refer to it, for any reason, in order to preserve the option to claim that evidence was improperly admitted in an appeal. (Which they should absolutely do, if it goes that far!)
Federal rules of evidence is pretty complicated stuff. But goddamn, does it look like someone fucked up bad on a really high profile case.
Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack
Yeah, he conveniently carried around a disposable weapon used in a murder that he was wanted for, instead of disposing of it. Also he conveniently wrote a manifesto related to the murder and carried that around in his backpack as well.
Nothing suspicious here. Move along.
Not a manifesto. Manifestos are published by the author. We have no way of knowing who authored that police officer's fever dream, but since the police published it, it wasn't written by Luigi. Also the language and grammar are consistent with the lack of education that cops receive, not the level of education that Luigi received.
Goes to show how much this isn't about Luigi, or even Brian Thompson. It's about the elite sending a message to the other 99%. Think, even if their case against Luigi is rocky at best, all that matters is they can get him to pay for Brian, regardless of whether he did it or not, or where the evidence points.
All that matters is that we the "peasants" get the underlying message:
- If you kill/harm an elite they'll chase you and make you pay with the full weight of their resources (and emphasis on "resources", not necessarily "law").
- If you did not kill or harm an elite you're still at risk, because then they'll choose a "peasant" scapegoat to pay anyway.
All that matters is that they get to take their pound of flesh, and that the "peasantry" gets discouraged to fight for their rights as the elite takes, and takes and takes.
Which is why it's so important that regardless of Luigi having done it or not, he should walk free unless there's solid, undeniable evidence of him doing it, like an actual and verified non-deepfake video of the assassination with his clear face on it. And even then he must only face the consequences the law demands, and what others would face in his place for killing the everyday average Joe. The fact that the life lost was an elite should have no bearing on the consequences.
Something that needs to be considered is the possibility of parallel construction in the arrest and alleged evidence
I love the smell of "Reasonable Doubt" in the morning
Leave it to the NYPD to find the guy who did it regardless of who actually did it
Spoiled Evidence....
This. The chain of evidence is tainted and cannot be accounted for. Anything in the backpack could have been placed there by anyone, at any time, before, during, or after his arrest.
My feelings on this: good. One less thing that they can use against him. If his defense doesn't get any evidence from the backpack thrown out, then idk what they're even doing.
Hooooooleeeeeeee fuck that is a comically blatant frame job
But also: corroborating articles? I’m not finding anything from AP or similar that back this up. How fresh is this?
Plot twist: good guy policewoman deliberately makes it impossible to prosecute Luigi.
Luigi is innocent. He did not kill Brian Thompson. He is a hero by the simple virtue that he is an innocent young man who was dragged through hell over something he didn't do and is having his life put on the line.
As for who actually did it. I hope he lives a long, quiet life.
So the cops that qoute "just knew" they had the right guy by looking at him also planted key evidence?
So convenient that your suspect doesn't bother hiding key evidence and that you get a hunch that is right on point...
Now is a good time to remind people to never ever agree to a police search. They're gonna phrase things weird and take advantage of your good nature. Never agree to any sort of search.
Hell, even if they have a warrant I'm tempted to explicitly say I don't consent. I'm not going to resist but I'm gonna make it clear I'm not consenting. Because how the hell do I even verify a warrant is real? I have no idea, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find out if they're at my door.
Be aware though, in Georgia there is "implied consent" with regards to roadside breathalyzer tests. If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer. Other states might have similar things.
It doesn't matter whether he did or did not do it just like it won't matter what evidence does or does not exist.
An example to be made was chosen, and it will be made.
The only question at this point is how will we react to that example.
I've been saying all along everything happened too quick for him to be the actual guy. It was pretty clear to me they were desperate to make an example of someone quickly and not accurately.
Normal US cop behavior
Would have been unbelievable if the US police wouldn’t have a long history of framing people because they are just too buttfuck stupid to do their jobs.
They need to play 12 Angry Men for every jury before deliberation, but play it twice for this particular jury. That's not the kind of evidence you send a kid to the chair over.