Personally: no & yes. For the latter, a legitimate court of law ought to laugh at this case. But that’s not what he is facing.

The subject came up in conversation, so I figured I would take the temperature here.

  • MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works
    561·
    21 hours ago

    I’m skeptical. They couldn’t find the shooter. Then they found a bag that looked like his, filled with monopoly money (no weapon). Then somebody at a McDonald’s calls because Luigi kinda looks like the guy. Luigi decides to hang out and eat his shitty fast food at a leisurely pace. Cops show up and supposedly find the weapon on him.

    I think it’s more likely that they found the weapon with the bag, but opted to keep that quiet so they could plant it on whoever they grabbed. If Luigi is the shooter, and he still had the gun when he left NY, then why the fuck wouldn’t he have tossed it into a random river along the way? Wasn’t it a “ghost gun” that he could easily dispose of and not have traced back to him? Wasn’t that the point of it? Isn’t that why it would’ve made sense to leave it with the bag?

    The job of the jury is to either find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or let him go free. I have reasonable doubt. I’m not sure what evidence they’re gonna reveal that will convince me, but I’m also not gonna be selected for that jury. I just don’t believe in ruining the entire life of somebody whose only provable crime was that he enjoyed McDonald’s in Altoona.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      48·
      21 hours ago

      It’s also crucial to point out that the chain of custody of “his backpack” was utterly fucked - the cop in question apparently started searching the bag at the McD’s, then just chucked it in her car, drove back to the station, and “continued the search there”. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

      Combine this with how DESPERATELY they tried to portray him as a super dangerous criminal, as well as how some of the surveillance footage of him is like… kinda obviously not him, and I’m extremely suspicious that he was just a guy who fit the description and they pinned it on him.

      But also, even if he actually did it, if I were on the jury, I’d vote to acquit.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        16·
        18 hours ago

        From the motion filed yesterday by Luigi’s lawyers, it seems like this is the avenue they’re taking showing reasonable doubt about the events surrounding the search of his backpack.

        1. At 9:54 a.m., Patrolman Detwiler walked out of the McDonald’s to discuss Mr. Mangione’s identification with another officer. During this conversation and without any explanation, Patrolman Detwiler covered his body-worn camera with his hand to prevent the camera from recording twenty seconds of his conversation.

        2. At 9:58 a.m., several officers started searching through Mr. Mangione’s jacket and pockets and searched him again. At the same time, Patrolwoman Christy Wasser and Patrolman Fox began searching through the backpack that law enforcement had placed on a table out of Mr. Mangione’s reach more than 17 minutes earlier.

    • dom@lemmy.ca
      7·
      21 hours ago

      Wouldn’t the jury take it at face value that the gun was found on him? The other pieces you mentioned are speculation.

      • moody@lemmings.world
        21·
        19 hours ago

        It’s the defence’s job to argue that chain of custody was broken and that the evidence is sketchy at best and sow doubt in its validity. The gun was found in his bag, after the initial search, after the cop had brought the bag to the police station. Not on his person at the time of arrest. There’s definitely reasonable doubt there. That’s a significant piece of evidence that they may be able to paint as unreliable.