This makes me believe it really wasn’t him. If he actually wrote a manifesto, he’d have declared himself guilty, taken credit, and done a speech about how he was now a martyr for the cause.
If he’s sticking to his story, then I believe him. They couldn’t find the real killer so they just went with whoever “fit the description”, as per usual.
I tend to think it’s because they charged him as a terrorist. I assume it’s a different law in which case he might be able to prove it’s not terrorism.
Of course it was him. That doesn’t mean from a legal perspective he is best served by pleading guilty. Pleading not guilty also means he’ll get a jury trial and his lawyers can introduce evidence that embarrasses private health insurance providers, or proves his state of mind, or otherwise casts doubt.
Its obviously NOT him, footage from the murder shows thin eyebrows, white skin (like Irish white) and way smaller dude than Luigi… I still cant understand that people still believe Luigi could be the killer…
That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead non-guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What overwhelming evidence in this case? The evidence made public definitely seems to imply he’s not the one who shot the CEO.
Why would a person take such a carefully planned route through the city to Central Park, change clothes and dump their bag, only to keep their gun, fake IDs and hand written manifesto/confession on their person three days later while eating lunch at a restaurant? If Luigi was the shooter and looking to take credit as what has been released of the manifesto implies, why hide out for three days instead of publicly turning themselves in after informing the press so it’s recorded and likely televised?
Wouldn’t be surprised if he was in New York on some legitimate business, they caught him on camera at a Starbucks near the murder, blasted his image all over the news and social media, and just waited for someone to call.
Then when they got the call, they grabbed a backpack with “evidence” and claimed he had it on him when they arrested him.
Did anyone believe that he was wondering around for 3 days with a bag that was holding the murder weapon, fake IDs, and a hand written manifesto? He ditched another bag, and escaped on an e-bike. Why would he then run around for three days with the rest of the evidence.
Either he is the dumbest man alive, or the police really wanted to just go with the first guy who fit the description knowing that they’ll look like heroes to their corporate overlords, and that if another guy bites the dust they can just say it was a copycat.
Personally, I am sad that is all it takes for you to believe something. Businesses, media, governments, and more are trying to make people believe things (unrelated to luigi) that aren’t true. You need to raise the bar, not lower it. Maybe you want to believe he didn’t do it, but I hope you don’t actually believe that based on so little information.
I mean, if he can away with it while not undermining his original intentions, why not do it?
There’s various ways he could go unpunished that would prevent a retrial and so he’d then be set up to be influential in some kind of healthcare reform.
The thing is they’ve actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they’ve made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn’t happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.
This makes me believe it really wasn’t him. If he actually wrote a manifesto, he’d have declared himself guilty, taken credit, and done a speech about how he was now a martyr for the cause.
If he’s sticking to his story, then I believe him. They couldn’t find the real killer so they just went with whoever “fit the description”, as per usual.
I tend to think it’s because they charged him as a terrorist. I assume it’s a different law in which case he might be able to prove it’s not terrorism.
Of course it was him. That doesn’t mean from a legal perspective he is best served by pleading guilty. Pleading not guilty also means he’ll get a jury trial and his lawyers can introduce evidence that embarrasses private health insurance providers, or proves his state of mind, or otherwise casts doubt.
Its obviously NOT him, footage from the murder shows thin eyebrows, white skin (like Irish white) and way smaller dude than Luigi… I still cant understand that people still believe Luigi could be the killer…
That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead non-guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What overwhelming evidence in this case? The evidence made public definitely seems to imply he’s not the one who shot the CEO.
Why would a person take such a carefully planned route through the city to Central Park, change clothes and dump their bag, only to keep their gun, fake IDs and hand written manifesto/confession on their person three days later while eating lunch at a restaurant? If Luigi was the shooter and looking to take credit as what has been released of the manifesto implies, why hide out for three days instead of publicly turning themselves in after informing the press so it’s recorded and likely televised?
Wouldn’t be surprised if he was in New York on some legitimate business, they caught him on camera at a Starbucks near the murder, blasted his image all over the news and social media, and just waited for someone to call.
Then when they got the call, they grabbed a backpack with “evidence” and claimed he had it on him when they arrested him.
Did anyone believe that he was wondering around for 3 days with a bag that was holding the murder weapon, fake IDs, and a hand written manifesto? He ditched another bag, and escaped on an e-bike. Why would he then run around for three days with the rest of the evidence.
Either he is the dumbest man alive, or the police really wanted to just go with the first guy who fit the description knowing that they’ll look like heroes to their corporate overlords, and that if another guy bites the dust they can just say it was a copycat.
Innocent until proven guilty. It’s the government’s job to prove him guilty. He doesn’t have to help them.
If Innocent until proven guilty, why the fuck do we lock people up to await their court date?
Because it makes money, and a splash of long standing racism
You can plug this answer verbatim into almost any “why does the US do this bad thing?”
Personally, I am sad that is all it takes for you to believe something. Businesses, media, governments, and more are trying to make people believe things (unrelated to luigi) that aren’t true. You need to raise the bar, not lower it. Maybe you want to believe he didn’t do it, but I hope you don’t actually believe that based on so little information.
There’s too much that doesn’t add up, it’s just too convenient that he had the gun and manifesto on him.
I mean, if he can away with it while not undermining his original intentions, why not do it?
There’s various ways he could go unpunished that would prevent a retrial and so he’d then be set up to be influential in some kind of healthcare reform.
Heavy on the cope though.
That doesn’t explain why he keeps mogging the camera, or what he yells to the journalist in that one video.
I don’t know if it’s him, but I think whoever it is, is just following their lawyer’s advice, not trying to be a martyr
The thing is they’ve actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they’ve made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn’t happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.
A jury could just find him not guilty on that one count but guilty on all others. Not seeing how it weakens any other part of the case.
I think it’s along the lines of ‘if the prosecution presented an accusation that is obviously false, how well standing is the rest of the case’
If I were in the jury, a case that is part bullshit would definitely compel me to think again about how well the investigation was done
Hope this is true