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.
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.