I see this sentiment expressed, but is there any evidence to support it? If he were really being framed, I’d expect his family, friends, lawyers, etc to be trying to spread that message as much as possible and publicly show that he couldn’t have done it. Like publicly present his alibi or something?
I have no problem with killing the CEO. Even if there were 100% irrefutable evidence Luigi did it, I’d still think Luigi was a good guy.
The cop was rifling through his bag for a couple of minutues, closed the bag and took it away for 10m, came back, started searching the same bag again and this time managed to find a gun.
You actually have it backwards, it’s innocent until proven guilty and so far the prosecutors weren’t able to produce any usable evidence. So no one has to prove that Luigi didn’t do it just like no one has to prove you or I didn’t do it
And if I were a judge or on the jury, I’d be looking for definitive evidence. But that doesn’t really matter for the question I’m asking. Regardless whether Luigi did it or someone else did, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the crime.
I’m not trying to adjudicate guilt or innocence here. I’m trying to find out if there’s something I’m not aware of. Has Luigi or his lawyer actually denied that Luigi did it? I know they’ve pushed back against the evidence, but have they come out and said “Luigi didn’t do it, this is where he was when it happened, this is why we know it wasn’t him?”
Fighting the evidence on procedural grounds and trying to discredit the prosecution is what a good lawyer does when they know they can’t prove their client’s innocence. They try to introduce doubt for the prosecution’s case. But if they could prove he didn’t do it, they’d just do that.
Again, I’m not trying to decide whether Luigi is a good guy or whether I should support him. If I were on the jury and Luigi got up there and swore up and down he did it and produced documentary footage of him doing it, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my point here. I’m trying to understand why so many people online seem so absolutely certain that this is a frameup when, as far as I can see, nobody connected to the case on the defense side is acting like it is…
Basically, right now the prosecution hasn’t actually provided any evidence that he did it. What little evidence they HAVE provided has tainted chain of custody, and was hilariously late. The defense STILL doesn’t actually have all the documentation and shit they were legally supposed to have like two months ago.
And by late, I mean that instead of giving the defense their legally required discovery documentation, the prosecution and mayor were grandstanding on TV and filming a documentary about how he ‘totally did it.’ (which is prejudicing potential juries).
They’ve also spied on his private communications with his lawyer, they never read him his miranda rights, the chain of custody of his belongings was broken (and a gun was, at minimum, planted- the gun was not in the backpack during the illegal search on scene, but the gun suddenly appeared inside the backpack at the station after chain of custody was broken.)
They’ve also changed their story several times, especially about the backpack and where it was found and what was in it. Finally, the pictures they have of the supposed shooter A: don’t actually look like Luigi Mangione to me and B: only prove that someone was at a hostel a few miles away something like two weeks before the shooting which is… utterly useless as proof.
tl;dr: People think it’s a frameup because they’ve already all but admitted to planting a gun on him, and they’ve broken basically every judicial process involved in a fair trial. The defense doesn’t want to push some parts of their argument too soon, because they need to save that for other arguments in the proceedings, not things easily disproven or discarded by less important proof. They have to play this as super carefully and by the book as possible, and that means not just shotgunning your arguments.
This is going to be as much about having the better sounding argument as it will be having the exonerating proof because of how politicized this case has become.
EDIT: I should also note- part of why the defense team isn’t trotting out all this information about where he could have been or what he might have been doing is because it straight up isn’t that part of the trial yet. As I said with the documentaries and interviews, the prosecution is doing a lot of prejudicing the jury, which should be called out by the judge, but hasn’t been. It might be that they are concerned that if they try to fight back, however, they WILL have the judge go after them for the same thing. They might also be saving and documenting all the occurrences of the prosecution doing that, in order to deliver it all at once in a massive, too-large-to-ignore package.
This is wild speculation but maybe his legal team are keeping that as an ace in the hole? The trial hasn’t even started, so why would they give the prosecution so much time to prepare for their strategy by publicly grandstanding about it?
Discovery works both ways. If you want to present an alibi defense at trial, you have to provide the prosecutor with information about that alibi. Defendants have to provide a list of witnesses they intend to call, and the prosecutor may depose those witnesses beforehand. There are certain exceptions - for example, if a prosecution witness lies on the stand, the defense may call a witness not on the list to rebut that witness’s statements and impugn their credibility.
Basically, neither the prosecution nor the defense are allowed a “hole card”. The “hand” is played open.
There’s been a blatant push by media to forward the idea that Luigi did it. All they have to do is … not report evidence to the contrary. What there IS, however, is a lack of evidence that he did it, if you take into consideration the fact that NYPD - who have a history of faking evidence - probably used a gun and fake manifesto to pin the crime on him. Innocent until proven guilty has gone out the window; even news outlets aren’t bothering to hedge their language with ‘alleged’ any more.
So, just speculation? I mean, the way the media is reporting on Luigi isn’t really surprising or different than the way they report on everything.
Is there anything beyond just speculation? Any statements from friends or family? Any attempt to present an alibi where he was at the time of the killing? Any statement from his lawyers denying he did it?
Did you miss the innocent until proven guilty and the statement that there is little to no evidence he did it. The onus is on the state to prove guilt. Not on Luigi to prove innocence. So, if you think he did it, where is the proof? Like the state isn’t coming forward with much untainted evidence and like…they really aren’t like…refuting like…the broken evidence chain and you know…they’re leaning really heavy on the media to swing popular opinion and stuff…
I’m not a judge and this isn’t a court of law. People assume guilt or innocence for themselves all the time. Obviously if I were a judge or on a jury I’d want a lot more evidence. Hell, if I were on a jury, I’d be pushing for jury nullification. I don’t see anything wrong with that CEO getting got.
Tainted evidence, media portrayal, dirty cops, this is all standard for the criminal justice system. That’s how loads of cases work, and we don’t all jump to immediately assume the state is framing every single person they accuse of anything.
My question is, if Luigi really is just some person completely unrelated to the crime who is being framed for it, why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him? If there were reason to believe he was being framed, with as much public support as he has, I’d assume we’d have an alibi showing where he was at the time of the shooting, or people talking about how they don’t believe he could have done it.
Everyone personally or directly connected to Luigi himself are acting exactly as I would expect them to act if he had actually done it.
I ultimately don’t really care whether or not Luigi personally was the guy who did it or not. Regardless, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the murder. I’m just trying to find out if there’s something I haven’t heard about. Some reason or alibi or explanation to believe he’s being framed beyond “we like what he is accused of doing and he seems like a pretty good guy.”
why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him?
His lawyers are being sensible and saving it for the trial.
He was probably told by his lawyers to do the same.
He lived alone IIRC, so he might not have an alibi. However, he was wearing clothes that were similar - but not identical - to the Adjuster, which… if he was changing clothes to shake off pursuit, you think he’d wear something very different instead.
The NYPD was probably under immense pressure from rich people to find the culprit - so they found a patsy. Wouldn’t be the first time. The ridiculous thing is all the news outlets loudly talking about how Luigi committed the murder as if it’s a foregone conclusion. Also probably from immense pressure from rich people. Someone needs to be punished, in a very public way, to keep the plebians in line.
I’m not trying to determine guilt. I’m trying to find out why so many people seem absolutely certain he was framed when nobody connected to the case on the defense side are acting like it is.
I mean, we (the public, not the justice system) treat people who plead not guilty as if they did it all the time. How many times have we seen videos of police violence, for example, and known the guy did it regardless of what the court says?
I’m not talking about whether he should be criminally convicted. Even if he had filmed the entire thing and that was in the public, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my purpose here.
I’m solely trying to answer this one question:
Why do so many people seem so certain Luigi is being framed by the state when nobody connected to the defense in the case is acting like it is or have said that it is?
So instead we assume he’s being framed despite no evidence being provided?
And, to be clear, there has been evidence provided that he did it. It’s very questionable evidence from an even more questionable source, but it’s not no evidence.
Compared to no evidence or even a claim from Luigi or his lawyers that he’s being framed.
The defense argues that the search of Mangione’s backpack further violated his rights, arguing that there were no circumstances that constituted police conducting a warrantless search of the backpack. In the motion, Mangione’s lawyers wrote that it was only once an officer conducting the search “she had made a potentially devastating mistake by thoroughly searching the backpack of a murder suspect in a significant New York press case without a warrant, she suddenly stated that she was searching through the backpack at McDonald’s to make sure there ‘wasn’t a bomb or anything in here’.” However, Mangione’s defense team notes that the bomb squad was never called and the McDonalds was not evacuated over concerns of a bomb, but that another officer did tell the officer conducting the search that they “probably need a search warrant for it.”
Defense attorneys claim that some of the body cam footage is missing including 20 seconds of when Mangione was being questioned by a police when an officer placed his hand over his body cam and the 11 minutes during which the backpack was transferred from the McDonalds to the Altoona Police Department Precinct. The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”
I see this sentiment expressed, but is there any evidence to support it? If he were really being framed, I’d expect his family, friends, lawyers, etc to be trying to spread that message as much as possible and publicly show that he couldn’t have done it. Like publicly present his alibi or something?
I have no problem with killing the CEO. Even if there were 100% irrefutable evidence Luigi did it, I’d still think Luigi was a good guy.
Why do people think he’s being framed?
The cop was rifling through his bag for a couple of minutues, closed the bag and took it away for 10m, came back, started searching the same bag again and this time managed to find a gun.
You actually have it backwards, it’s innocent until proven guilty and so far the prosecutors weren’t able to produce any usable evidence. So no one has to prove that Luigi didn’t do it just like no one has to prove you or I didn’t do it
And if I were a judge or on the jury, I’d be looking for definitive evidence. But that doesn’t really matter for the question I’m asking. Regardless whether Luigi did it or someone else did, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the crime.
I’m not trying to adjudicate guilt or innocence here. I’m trying to find out if there’s something I’m not aware of. Has Luigi or his lawyer actually denied that Luigi did it? I know they’ve pushed back against the evidence, but have they come out and said “Luigi didn’t do it, this is where he was when it happened, this is why we know it wasn’t him?”
Fighting the evidence on procedural grounds and trying to discredit the prosecution is what a good lawyer does when they know they can’t prove their client’s innocence. They try to introduce doubt for the prosecution’s case. But if they could prove he didn’t do it, they’d just do that.
Again, I’m not trying to decide whether Luigi is a good guy or whether I should support him. If I were on the jury and Luigi got up there and swore up and down he did it and produced documentary footage of him doing it, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my point here. I’m trying to understand why so many people online seem so absolutely certain that this is a frameup when, as far as I can see, nobody connected to the case on the defense side is acting like it is…
Basically, right now the prosecution hasn’t actually provided any evidence that he did it. What little evidence they HAVE provided has tainted chain of custody, and was hilariously late. The defense STILL doesn’t actually have all the documentation and shit they were legally supposed to have like two months ago.
And by late, I mean that instead of giving the defense their legally required discovery documentation, the prosecution and mayor were grandstanding on TV and filming a documentary about how he ‘totally did it.’ (which is prejudicing potential juries).
They’ve also spied on his private communications with his lawyer, they never read him his miranda rights, the chain of custody of his belongings was broken (and a gun was, at minimum, planted- the gun was not in the backpack during the illegal search on scene, but the gun suddenly appeared inside the backpack at the station after chain of custody was broken.)
They’ve also changed their story several times, especially about the backpack and where it was found and what was in it. Finally, the pictures they have of the supposed shooter A: don’t actually look like Luigi Mangione to me and B: only prove that someone was at a hostel a few miles away something like two weeks before the shooting which is… utterly useless as proof.
tl;dr: People think it’s a frameup because they’ve already all but admitted to planting a gun on him, and they’ve broken basically every judicial process involved in a fair trial. The defense doesn’t want to push some parts of their argument too soon, because they need to save that for other arguments in the proceedings, not things easily disproven or discarded by less important proof. They have to play this as super carefully and by the book as possible, and that means not just shotgunning your arguments.
This is going to be as much about having the better sounding argument as it will be having the exonerating proof because of how politicized this case has become.
EDIT: I should also note- part of why the defense team isn’t trotting out all this information about where he could have been or what he might have been doing is because it straight up isn’t that part of the trial yet. As I said with the documentaries and interviews, the prosecution is doing a lot of prejudicing the jury, which should be called out by the judge, but hasn’t been. It might be that they are concerned that if they try to fight back, however, they WILL have the judge go after them for the same thing. They might also be saving and documenting all the occurrences of the prosecution doing that, in order to deliver it all at once in a massive, too-large-to-ignore package.
This is wild speculation but maybe his legal team are keeping that as an ace in the hole? The trial hasn’t even started, so why would they give the prosecution so much time to prepare for their strategy by publicly grandstanding about it?
Discovery works both ways. If you want to present an alibi defense at trial, you have to provide the prosecutor with information about that alibi. Defendants have to provide a list of witnesses they intend to call, and the prosecutor may depose those witnesses beforehand. There are certain exceptions - for example, if a prosecution witness lies on the stand, the defense may call a witness not on the list to rebut that witness’s statements and impugn their credibility.
Basically, neither the prosecution nor the defense are allowed a “hole card”. The “hand” is played open.
There’s been a blatant push by media to forward the idea that Luigi did it. All they have to do is … not report evidence to the contrary. What there IS, however, is a lack of evidence that he did it, if you take into consideration the fact that NYPD - who have a history of faking evidence - probably used a gun and fake manifesto to pin the crime on him. Innocent until proven guilty has gone out the window; even news outlets aren’t bothering to hedge their language with ‘alleged’ any more.
Which is bloody hilarious because he can sue the shit outta them for it
So, just speculation? I mean, the way the media is reporting on Luigi isn’t really surprising or different than the way they report on everything.
Is there anything beyond just speculation? Any statements from friends or family? Any attempt to present an alibi where he was at the time of the killing? Any statement from his lawyers denying he did it?
Did you miss the innocent until proven guilty and the statement that there is little to no evidence he did it. The onus is on the state to prove guilt. Not on Luigi to prove innocence. So, if you think he did it, where is the proof? Like the state isn’t coming forward with much untainted evidence and like…they really aren’t like…refuting like…the broken evidence chain and you know…they’re leaning really heavy on the media to swing popular opinion and stuff…
I’m not a judge and this isn’t a court of law. People assume guilt or innocence for themselves all the time. Obviously if I were a judge or on a jury I’d want a lot more evidence. Hell, if I were on a jury, I’d be pushing for jury nullification. I don’t see anything wrong with that CEO getting got.
Tainted evidence, media portrayal, dirty cops, this is all standard for the criminal justice system. That’s how loads of cases work, and we don’t all jump to immediately assume the state is framing every single person they accuse of anything.
My question is, if Luigi really is just some person completely unrelated to the crime who is being framed for it, why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him? If there were reason to believe he was being framed, with as much public support as he has, I’d assume we’d have an alibi showing where he was at the time of the shooting, or people talking about how they don’t believe he could have done it.
Everyone personally or directly connected to Luigi himself are acting exactly as I would expect them to act if he had actually done it.
I ultimately don’t really care whether or not Luigi personally was the guy who did it or not. Regardless, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the murder. I’m just trying to find out if there’s something I haven’t heard about. Some reason or alibi or explanation to believe he’s being framed beyond “we like what he is accused of doing and he seems like a pretty good guy.”
His lawyers are being sensible and saving it for the trial.
He was probably told by his lawyers to do the same.
He lived alone IIRC, so he might not have an alibi. However, he was wearing clothes that were similar - but not identical - to the Adjuster, which… if he was changing clothes to shake off pursuit, you think he’d wear something very different instead.
The NYPD was probably under immense pressure from rich people to find the culprit - so they found a patsy. Wouldn’t be the first time. The ridiculous thing is all the news outlets loudly talking about how Luigi committed the murder as if it’s a foregone conclusion. Also probably from immense pressure from rich people. Someone needs to be punished, in a very public way, to keep the plebians in line.
Guilty by vibe. Got it.
deleted by creator
Is it common sense? I’ve seen no evidence that he did it other than the police saying he did and a gun/manifesto in a bag that broke chain of custody.
deleted by creator
So you didn’t read what I wrote at all, did you?
I’m not trying to determine guilt. I’m trying to find out why so many people seem absolutely certain he was framed when nobody connected to the case on the defense side are acting like it is.
He plead not guilty. So until the government proves otherwise we must assume that some other really cool person killed that guy.
I mean, we (the public, not the justice system) treat people who plead not guilty as if they did it all the time. How many times have we seen videos of police violence, for example, and known the guy did it regardless of what the court says?
I’m not talking about whether he should be criminally convicted. Even if he had filmed the entire thing and that was in the public, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my purpose here.
I’m solely trying to answer this one question:
Why do so many people seem so certain Luigi is being framed by the state when nobody connected to the defense in the case is acting like it is or have said that it is?
Because the alternative is to assume he’s guilty despite no evidence being provided?
So instead we assume he’s being framed despite no evidence being provided?
And, to be clear, there has been evidence provided that he did it. It’s very questionable evidence from an even more questionable source, but it’s not no evidence.
Compared to no evidence or even a claim from Luigi or his lawyers that he’s being framed.
deleted by creator
Opportunity to plant evidence.
The defense argues that the search of Mangione’s backpack further violated his rights, arguing that there were no circumstances that constituted police conducting a warrantless search of the backpack. In the motion, Mangione’s lawyers wrote that it was only once an officer conducting the search “she had made a potentially devastating mistake by thoroughly searching the backpack of a murder suspect in a significant New York press case without a warrant, she suddenly stated that she was searching through the backpack at McDonald’s to make sure there ‘wasn’t a bomb or anything in here’.” However, Mangione’s defense team notes that the bomb squad was never called and the McDonalds was not evacuated over concerns of a bomb, but that another officer did tell the officer conducting the search that they “probably need a search warrant for it.”
Defense attorneys claim that some of the body cam footage is missing including 20 seconds of when Mangione was being questioned by a police when an officer placed his hand over his body cam and the 11 minutes during which the backpack was transferred from the McDonalds to the Altoona Police Department Precinct. The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”
Yep. Not sure what you want from that
Presumably that will be during the trial.
Plea of not guilty.