- cross-posted to:
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Luigi Mangione Accuses Fish of Swimming
So some fishy stuff to be sure, but I don’t think cash or the “faraday” bag are key pieces of evidence. The gun and the manifesto, if real, are key pieces of evidence. And he didn’t say those were planted according to the article, which makes the headline a little misleading.
but, as everyone keeps saying whenever this comes up, the only reason they’re talking about this is because they were trying to deny him bail and they cited the cash and the bag, which is why he made a statement on those things, but not the other things (which were not being brought up to deny him bail)
Yeah that’s a valid point re: their argument to deny bail, forgot about that. And that would also be plausible for why they would plant stuff when they already had more damning evidence, they wanted to make sure he wasn’t getting bail.
Even this explanation may be extrapolating too heavily. I think we’re going to have to wait for the trial to really see what happened
Yeah, that’s the idea. This hearing was not the murder trial, so evidence pertaining to guilt or innocence is unlikely to have been discussed since it was not relevant to the matter at hand.
Which, as you said, means we have to wait for the trial to know anything conclusively. But the fact that he only disputed the cash does not necessarily mean he is admitting to the rest of it.
Yeah im just saying i’ve seen this come up like 50 times now im just repeating what i heard
Yeah, presumably he will say the same about the gun and manifesto, that’s just not relevant at the moment.
It’s me, I’m everyone
His fingerprints match the Starbucks trash he threw away right before the assassination occurred. It’s him. They got him.
Eyyyy, suddenly it’s a crime to be thirsty in NYC? I’m commuting ovah here!
My understanding is that prosecutors need concrete evidence to secure a conviction. They have to demonstrate that the accused individual was indeed present at the scene of the crime. I’m guessing that will be extremely difficult to obtain a guilty verdict with circumstantial evidence like that. I would also imagine that many defense attorneys are willing to work pro bono for this case.
Yeah, I was cautiously skeptical from the beginning but there’s way too many pieces including his statements during arrest. I’d be shocked if it somehow wasn’t him at this point.
Strange for him to lie about the money of all things. Almost makes me wonder if that particular part actually was planted.
