• vrojak@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?

      • MrTolkinghoen@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It sounds like they’re buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)

        So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc… To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they’re guilty.

        Obviously he’s innocent though.

  • notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    So they not only have to find 12 people who haven’t been fucked personally or had friends family fucked by their health insurance, now those 12 people have to be blind Pig supporters?

    Anything other than a not guilty (or some insanely strong evidence with a perfect chain of custody) verdict for this guy and the fix is in.

    If they convict Luigi get the fuck out while you still can, cause the alternative is guerilla warfare against the Gilead states of orange stupidity.

  • Gerudo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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”

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, the real shooter is probably in the woods somewhere barely surviving off what they can find. At least, that’s more reasonable than doing a high profile assassination and going to McDonalds for a burger after (I know it was days later, it’s hyperbole).

        • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, the real shooter is probably in the woods somewhere barely surviving off what they can find.

          …it’s mushrooms. Which is just super.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s the problem though. Everyone’s playing “If I were him”.

        The thing is, we don’t know what was going on his mind. Say he actually was the one who did it. Maybe he wanted to get caught. Maybe he assumed he was going to get caught within minutes, and didn’t bother throwing away the evidence because he didn’t think there was any point. Maybe he kept changing his mind about what he was going to do, and in the end that indecision caught up with him.

        Assuming he’s actually the one who shot the CEO, I already have trouble understanding his thinking. He shot a guy in cold blood who may have been scummy, but hadn’t actually hurt Mangione or anybody he cared about, AFAIK. He didn’t do it as part of a community. I know he’s not a mass shooter, but shooting a stranger for ideological reasons is most similar to mass shooters or bombers. Most of the times people do that, they’re egged on by a community. He apparently just did it on his own.

        So yeah, I don’t get it, but the fact I don’t get it doesn’t convince me it can’t be true.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          doesn’t convince me it can’t be true

          That sounds like backwards logic - you’re postulating guilt based on the lack of evidence of innocence (if I’m understanding your point correctly.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re not. I’m not saying he’s guilty. I’m just saying that it’s silly to imply there’s a conspiracy or something just because some of his alleged actions seem abnormal, when cherry-picking which of his actions you’re looking at.

      • ziggurat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

    • ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think he probably is the right guy but he was smart enough to cover his tracks and they only found him because of some kind of illegal surveillance we don’t know about. Would explain why they’re so desperate for anything else to explain how they know it was him.

      • crawlspace@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        My issue with that is that if he were caught via illegal surveillance so soon after the fact, it seems strange that they wouldn’t have caught him during the planning/prep stages using said surveillance.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Think of it like the eye of sauron, when it’s looking at you it won’t miss anything, but it needs a reason to be looking.

          There is so much junk data out there, you don’t know what matters. But the moment you have a face, time, and area you can do some crazy things.

  • Wilco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I still think this would be a bad case for jury nullification. Too much attention, too easily sent to the supreme court, court is too packed with clowns to do anything other than remove the power of jury nullification for the benefit of their wealthy owners.

      Who knows though, maybe that would get people to actually decide enough is enough, i doubt it though.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    At this point the funniest thing would be if the real assassin was to take down another healthcare CEO.

    • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why would the hitman engrave the bullets? If they’re picking a plausible scapegoat with severe medical issues, then why one that’s young rich and handsome?

        • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Man, I never said the theory was…dare I say… bulletproof? 🤓

          Buuuuuut…if all the evidence was planted? Look, the “manifesto”, the engraved bullets, the whole thing is a cop’s wet dream. I’m willing to believe Luigi is in fact the triggerman, willing to believe that he’s unhinged enough to have toted all that about with him. You gotta think though…the NYPD were frothing, Altoona PD are under staffed, under paid. Not outside the realm of possibility it’s a frame job.

          Just a tinfoil hat theory that I thought was…fun? Not really the best word for it, but fits well enough.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is the harsh truth. Right now, legally, their case is falling apart. A nontrivial amount of hard evidence was in that bag and this action should get everything tossed because the chain of evidence is non-existent.

        The other poster is also correct, they’ve decided he should be punished for this, whether he did or not is irrelevant. They’re going to twist every ounce of evidence they can to say he did it. If that doesn’t work, he’ll be found hanging from his shoelaces…