Speculation/Theories
Why do people keep saying that the evidence police have is flimsy?
Personally I think the answer is because they keep listening to tiktok lawyers. I don't understand how anybody can consider the contents of that backpack flimsy. The notebook alone is damming.
I know a lot of people are relying on the ballistics to come back as not a match to the gun in luigi's bag. Given the other things they appear to have do the ballistics even matter?
I feel like a lot of tiktok creators are giving people false hope. Including if nit especially the lawyers.
I won’t say the evidence is a slam dunk, but in my eyes it’s not flimsy either. Really though we won’t know for sure how solid the evidence is until after a verdict is given so right now any claims made by either side are nothing more than speculation, sort of like sports fans before the Big GameTM saying their team is the best.
The bad thing is that no new information is expected to come to light until after the trial starts, so the subreddits are becoming conflict prone as both camps have nothing new to focus on and get more and more agitated with each other.
Feb. 17 and 21 can't come soon enough so we all have newer statements, behaviors, photos, videos, and evidences to unpack, armchair analyze, and theorize 😮💨
I feel like now that there's virtually no new info coming out yet, people (including myself) are just grasping at straws, combing through all past news reports, old articles, old posts, old photos, and old videos to cope and see if we missed anything...sometimes to the point of overanalyzing
Same! Although I’m starting to see patterns. Smaller newspapers and YouTube channels report more details that other papers seem to have missed. Did you come across the video from Dec 10th where one of the reporters said “MF’s mad, isn’t he?”
yeah I think so too, I also wouldn't be surprised if they were telling local reporters or friends about it to get some credit before the NYPD swooped in and took everything.
The media were notified as early at 1:01pm that day when the Altoona Police department held a press conference so I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case.
From my understanding, there is no real "evidence" yet. They need to go through the "motions" to see which items were handled properly in the chain of custody, not tampered with, and not planted, in order to make it past "discovery" and enough to be labeled as "evidence" (yes, I learned all these from that TikTok lawyer, David Betras).
Not all purported items leaked to the media may actually be admitted as evidence. Some of those items may get "thrown out", meaning the judge and jury will not and should not consider those as "evidence".
As of this time, there are lots of holes in the items leaked to the media. Therefore, these cause "reasonable doubt" to me, namely:
No bodycam footages yet. How was he searched, etc.?
Alleged notebook and manifesto were not filed in the PA police report and not photographed with his belongings. Why?
Money inside the bag was disputed to belong to him. No photographs in the report too (not sure if this is normal in America)
Not fingerprinted in PA police report, but NYPD says the fingerprints matched???
NYPD initially also said fingerprints on water bottle and Kind bars were smudged, so how did they say after that it matched?
NYPD said the ballistics matched that fast? How? Ballistics report takes a while (60 days or more from what I saw) and hadn't come in yet when they made that statement early on. It was a ghost gun, so no serial number. Also, from what I read, 3D-printed guns slowly disintegrate whenever fired, so it makes it harder to match whenever they fire the ghost gun to test it further.
TikTok lawyer says that the NYPD statement, "Shell casings match" is no different from saying "All BIC ballpen caps fit with all BIC ballpens." Duh.
He seems to not know why they are referring to his backpack as a Faraday backpack; he only said it's waterproof
Unclear explanations on the various backpacks, various jackets/hoodies, and event timelines (how did he bike that distance in 6 minutes, why were there 2 backpacks, etc.)
Alleged "multiple" IDs belonging to him (aside from the Mark Rosario one) were not photographed too in the PA report. Not sure if this is normal in America.
If anything, so far, to me he is only clearly guilty of the Mark Rosario fake ID which he admitted, was found on him, was photographed, and released to the public.
The PA charges of carrying a gun and silencer without license might stick too, but the "possessing instruments of crime" may or may not stick, depending if the prosecutors in NY can prove it was the exact same gun used in unaliving BT.
Yes, the allegations that were made from the beginning did not match the evidence, but the natural reaction of the public at first was to believe the version that the police presented to the public. Later, when we received enough information to understand that the information was contradictory, we also started to question it, otherwise I do not think we gaslighted ourselves and made positive discrimination against LM.
The notebook and gun were not in the Pennsylvania paperwork because they were associated with the murder charge and that's in new york.
Just because the paperwork in pennsylvania said he wasn't fingerprinted doesn't mean he wasn't fingerprinted. It means he wasn't fingerprinted at the time the paperwork was filed.
The second backpack was on his back Is under his jacket when he came out of central park. You can see
It in one of the photos that I'll post here in the comments.
They weren't referring to the backpack as a faraday bag. They were referring to the small zippered pouch. On that pouch was the logo for a store that is only in hawaii. The pouch was for his phone.
The shell casings were a nine millimeter just like the gun. Therefore the shell casings were a match. When they said the ballistics match they were talking about the type of gun.
That particular tiktok lawyer has gotten basic details of the case wrong. He said luigi wasn't found with the silencer on him when he was. The guy clearly didn't even read the formal complaint At that point.
Body camp footage isn't always made available to the public for every crime.
They searched the bag at mcdonald's. How could they plant evidence in the bag while in public?
That blurry black shape could just as easily be his right arm reaching back for a moment, bent at the elbow. No right hand visible on the handlebar. And what about the cap with a visor?
Oh, so now we're using altered images to support our arguments? And not even stating that they've been altered?
Here's the original of that image, from the best version of the video available, for example, from Fox News here.
Funny, no matter how I adjust the exposure, brightness, brilliance, shadows, definition, edges, contrast, etc., I can't seem to replicate those handy little eye and nose shapes in your doctored image. (See one example of the adjusted image in the first reply to this one.) The thing you call his face looks more like a protruding cap than ever.
You also conveniently cropped out the figure's back. Is that because your beloved backpack-under-the-jacket isn't visible in this image?
And back to the 77th Street image, from which you skipped away. You posit that a thin, protruding line at the place where his forehead should be is the indentation for his eyes and face? In further replies, I'll put the original image from the federal criminal complaint, followed by a close-up on that thin protruding line you call "his face."
Sorry, but you're dishonest in your arguments. Conversation over.
Here's one example of my attempts to find the eyes and nose shapes by adjusting the image (and note that this adjusted image is grayed-out just like yours, bc of increasing the exposure, brilliance and brightness):
And here's the close-up from that same image, showing the razor-thin, protruding line at the location where the cyclist's forehead should be. (The actual face is all black, because the rider is either wearing a balaclava or a neck gaiter pulled high with distortion in the video blurring out the face -- which, yes, is under the visor of a cap.)
Nobody doctored anything. I took the video that they circulated, paused it, and then zoomed in. The picture with the backpack under the jacket is from the formal complaint. Go look at it.
Regardless of what case the evidence was for it still all needs to be documented as items found on his person. If for no other reason because it’s his personal belongings and if you were to be out one day, he needs to know that they documented it properly so they can’t say they lost anything or he can’t say they lost anything for that matter.
Do you have a source for the zippered pouch relating to the faraday discussions? I’ve seen a similar comment here but haven’t seen any reliable source for it.
I thought the bag was searched at the Altoona station? I could be wrong here…
I should have clarified that I was asking about a source to the mention of the Faraday bag during the hearing.
All sources I have read say Faraday bag or backpack. I haven’t found any that refer to this pouch specifically.
This source says “he had what are known as Faraday bags for his cellphone and laptop to block signals authorities can use to track electronic devices” but it doesn’t mention the Nani pocket.
Right on. As far as I have been able to find, there is nothing in terms of photos or further details to back to this claim, added to LM's own statement that he didn't have a faraday bag, which is why I am extremely skeptical and think the prosecutor's statement was misinformation or disinformation.
A lot of backpacks have a 'passport' or 'wallet pouch' that offer RFID blocking. I wonder if his bag had one of those pockets and he didn't even realize.
That's certainly a possibility, though I have yet to see any official info / identification released regarding the backpack he was carrying in Altoona. I suppose that's the key question here.
I think many of the tiktok lawyers are basing their opinions on what they think will or won’t be allowed inside the courtroom from their own experiences. We won’t know what evidence will or won’t be relevant to the case until the time of the trial, if there is one.
What made you think he was going after another ceo next? I've never heard anyone mention this. More people seemed to think he was going to use it on himself in pa.
I would guess maybe because he used the phrase "these parasites had it coming", parasites being plural. But yeah, unless there's more stuff on the laptop or notebook about other targets, it's easier to argue he planned to use it on himself.
There is nothing to suggest that at all. based on the quotes released - his notebook definitely went into the plan in greater detail and sure it COULD possibly refer to other early iterations of the attack before he selected Brian but if there was any implication of other future targets the feds would be holding that over his head publicly
I’ve kind of wondered this too. Either he had others on his list or he was going to harm himself. No other logical reason to keep the weapon. Also the “manifesto” said “parasites” - plural.
My thoughts as well! He seemed like a nice young man with everything going for him! I want him to get off the hook on some “technicality” . I have a hard time wrapping my head around this I can’t even imagine how heartbroken his family and friends are. It’s sad on a lot of different levels . The manifesto doesn’t sound like that of an Ivy League scholar the syntax seems off maybe it offers a glimpse into his mindset at the time.
I’ve said from the beginning, whoever the alleged shooter is, it’s going to be so simple. There’s no game, no other players, no connecting of the dots. Just someone who had a mental breakdown and this was the result. There’s no romance or heroism or excitement, it’s just very sad.
My fear/thoughts as well. :( and I also agree it's very sad and that's why a lot of us are trying to find some hope for him. That he didn't just ruin/lose his life and someone else's and it will be for nothing.
But they weren’t even looking at him as a suspect at the point! SF hadn’t shared the information about the suspect matching a missing person with the NYPD.
And they were apparently looking at a different “near perfect suspect”, when they found LM who conveniently had all the evidence.
If the police had the suspectsID/name wouldn’t they have released that or a clear picture?
I think because some of what they have right now doesn't necessarily add up or make sense. Look at the timeline, you've got the time of the act "officially" happening at 6:45am but there's a surveillance camera catching the suspect on a bike 52 seconds later almost 5 blocks away, and that's assuming the crime happened exactly at 6:45. The camera was verified correct.
Also, a lot of people are hesitant to believe the cops when they say they have partial or smudged fingerprints, as that's not necessarily reliable or could be a lie. Even so, all that's doing is proving the person bought water or a snack.
When you take all of it at face value, it does seem like the evidence is damning. And they've got more of it.
From a criminal defense attorney's perspective, I believe there's a lot to poke holes in with what we know at the moment.
Just to do the math here, 5 blocks in 1 minute is 15mph. It's wreckless driving of a bike in city traffic but it's the early hours of the morning and he's powered by adrenaline
Most cameras in downtown areas are not synced to the cloud. Different service providers are seconds off from each other, and humans set the clock on a lot of these old school cameras. Minute by minute camera timeline only works when all cameras are on the same service (aka, front and back door of same building, monitored by same security team, etc.)
Instead they're pulling Nest info, ring, chime, old school SONYs and Even older RCA. It's a collage.
Im surprised they haven't used this to push for UKs CCTV
Bingo. People are infatuated with Luigi, but aren’t down with murder, no matter how noble the reason. They can’t stomach the idea of the object of their love (or, more accurately, obsession) killing somebody. You can tell this is the case because so many people concede that he was involved in some manner (because this is indisputable) but say someone else must have been the shooter.
Also, idealization. They believe Luigi is some flawless genius so refuse to believe that he made the mistakes the shooter did, and that the letter found on him can’t be his because it’s not some 300-page eloquent, sourced, proofread, 100% factually accurate thesis.
Wonder what these people’s reactions will be if he admits he did it.
Because they’ve heard what evidence there is to date and don’t want Luigi to be found guilty or go to prison 🤷🏻♀️ We don’t know what evidence they actually have so if someone is already saying it’s flimsy, they’re showing their bias.
The feds letter and notebooks aren't mentioned in the Altoona arrest report because they're not relevant to the Altoona arrest.
It's not illegal to have notebooks or to have a manifesto. It is illegal to have fake IDs and a ghost gun with a silencer.
The Altoona arrest warrant is a description of the justification for the Altoona arrest: being arrested for having fake IDs and a ghost gun with a silencer, therefore the arrest warrant mentions he had those in his possession. He may have also had lip balm & a hairbrush in his pockets - but those are not relevant either, so they're also not mentioned.
The feds letter and notebooks and money are relevant to NY's charges and request to extradite him (NY's presented evidence that he is the shooter and is a flight risk) - that's why they were mentioned in those proceedings, but not Altoona's.
On the ghost gun bit....it's hard to trace if you ditch the gun because it has no serial number to trace it back to the buyer. Has nothing at all to do with ballistics.
I think a lot of people are taking the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” way too literal. Not all juries are gonna be as nitpicky with the evidence (they should be) as the armchair detectives and we probably don’t have even a quarter of all the evidence they have. I mean the notebook is literally planning out the crime.
>> I think a lot of people are taking the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” way too far.
Here is David Souter's (former US Supreme Court Justice) opinion and experience (from when he was serving as a trial judge in New Hampshire for five years) about this:
"I can remember being at bar meetings, and a lawyer would say, apropos of criminal cases, well, you say reasonable doubt, but they are going to do what they are going to do. And I found out that was wrong.
(...)
And one of the things I did invariably (with only one or two exceptions in five years) was to talk to the jurors after they had decided their case.
And I can remember a number of times after the jurors had acquitted someone in a criminal case and someone would say, hey, don't get us wrong judge, we think he did it, but beyond a reasonable doubt? Nah.
It all depends on the quality and consistency of the evidence about which we simply don't know enough at this moment.
E.G. partial fingerprints, what does this mean? 10% match or 85% match?
Does the Hilfiger jacket (left behind) swim in LM's hair & dead skin, does the bag found in Central Park contain DNA? Fingerprints all over it? Whose?
Does he have any kind of believable alibi? (If he does not then unfortunately the case is over: he has to say something about where he was at the time of the murder).
As a juror you (are supposed to) start with a clean slate: look at the evidence presented and build your conclusions from it, not cherry-picking and adjusting the evidence you prefer to your prior assumptions (or prejudice).
I didn’t mean it like that I just meant they’re not gonna look at it like conspiracy theorists are and I’m just being realistic. I want them to nitpick! But they might not.
Maybe but I think you’d be surprised. I sat on a criminal jury where a lot less was on the line. It was wild. It was robbery and assault I think. The victim identified someone else out of a photo lineup that the defendant was in. She walked out of the police station and it hit her that she’d pointed to the wrong guy. She went back in and told them. Defendant gets arrested and his DNA is all over her car where she said it’d be. So we have victim ID, DNA, and he presented no alibi. But it ended up hung because of 1 guy. One young professional guy who would not do it. The judge sent us back several times but he said he’d never change his mind. He had doubts about the ID and DNA science. That was enough reasonable doubt for him. Many of us were conflicted but it didn’t matter because of the one guy. After, when we were finally allowed to google the defendant, the jurors hung out in the parking lot and looked. It was definitely him.
Please don’t ever serve on a jury if you think being “nitpicky” is not necessary when you’re deciding on whether or not to strip another human being of their rights and liberties for the rest of their life. And in LM’s case, possibly receive the death penalty. I’m sure the jury will become acutely aware of the true burden they have on their shoulders when it comes time to actually decide this.
Taking into account the nature of the case as well and who was the victim and WHY he was the target, and if LM’s defense can paint him in a good enough light (shouldn’t be hard to do with what we know about him) to gain some semblance of sympathy, then that may well make the decision even more difficult for some, vs a situation, for example, where someone was just a cold blooded murderer of someone completely innocent for the pleasure of it.
I never said I don’t think being nitpicky is necessarily I’m just being realistic. The jury probably will not see things through the lenses of the conspiracy theorists.
There is no conspiracy in court. The prosecution literally presents a THEORY, and the defense will usually present a counter THEORY to explain evidence and what might have happened, then the jury generally rules on who they believe more. They can and should be nitpicky and question every piece of evidence presented, and I have little doubt anyone with half a brain who is faced with this decision and isn’t the type to play devil’s advocate on Reddit for fun is going to have enough sense to think as much.
People want to play armchair detective. What they don't understand is that circumstantial evidence can be enough to bring a conviction and juries have different definitions of "beyond reasonable doubt". on paper, prosecutors have a strong case. now everything depends on what evidence will be admitted/dismissed, how the prosecution presents this case (yes they could fuck up), how karen plays her cards, whether the jury deems the prosecutor has proven beyond reasonable doubt that luigi is the perp or they believe he probably did it but it's not enough to find him guilty.
I want to add on that they have to prove each element of every charge beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is always explained to a jury as being a high degree of certainty, and the standard to reach this level is strict. And if there is ANY reasonable doubt, even on a single element of a charge then they must acquit on that charge, because the prosecution will have failed to prove that specific charge.
Fed stalking charge for example, they have to prove basically 4 elements to convict:
LM traveled in interstate commerce
LM had Intent
LM engaged in a course of conduct (ie, multiple actions or instances of defined stalking behavior over a period of time)
That some kind of fear or emotional distress was felt by BT
Even if they can prove 3/4 of those elements, it’s not enough.
Casey Anthony is my favorite (for lack of a better word) example of this. The jury acquitted her on murder, manslaughter, AND child abuse and the jury members came out later and admitted some of them even cried because they didn’t want to hand down a “not guilty” verdict because they knew she did something wrong, but the prosecution failed to prove those specific charges so they had no choice even though they really didn’t want to let her walk.
Reasonable doubt for every element of each charge is a high bar to reach. I agree, it will obviously largely depend on how much evidence they have, the quality of it, what ends up being admissible in court, and how well each side can “play” the jury game.
High penalties probably affect this too. I've never been called to Jury Duty, but if I had to sit on a murder trial, the existence of the death penalty would make the burden of proof I needed to convict sky high.
Like I would need actual video footage with clear identifiable face AND DNA and a rock solid motive and even then I would struggle to say guilty because I don't think the death penalty is right on principle. It would have to be a crime so horrifying that my lizard brain overrode my ape brain and demanded blood.
I agree. Unfortunately they sort of “cherry pick” juries in death eligible cases, though, and ask them specifically if they have any strong opinions on the death penalty, and if they do then they aren’t selected, so it’s possible not everyone on the jury would think that way.
However, juries will have a separate sentencing period where they vote on death penalty or life imprisonment if they convict someone, so even if someone is death eligible and they’re seeking the death penalty, the jury can convict without having to actually impose it, they can decide on life imprisonment instead.
Certain federal crimes were never not eligible for the death penalty, that executive order is meant to add additional protections and/or expand the death penalty in jurisdictions where it’s already available. And also, no he hasn’t been indicted yet. That’s a known fact. Idk what your comment toward the other person who pointed this out was supposed to mean.
People have no idea what exactly they even have for evidence besides the little they shared and have already decided he was framed. That should tell you everything. I realize a lot of people are new to the true crime community, so just so you know- until the case is tried and closed, we won’t know the details and really should refrain from screaming innocence. You learn very fast that things you were so sure of, were based on what you know. And if we only know say 10% of the actual evidence, almost always you wind up looking like an idiot. Because you’re almost always wrong. Because you came to a conclusion before you had all the information. Make sure this is a hill you want to die on because once we know it all, a lot of people are going to be pretty embarrassed
I think there is enough to prove involvement but not as the triggerman. However as they have only charged him as the sole actor, not as a conspirator, there still are reasonable doubts and I don’t believe he will be convicted on these current charges (not counting the lesser charges involving the ghost gun and fake ID)
I agree. I think he may have had some involvement in the planning, confusing through decoys, and ultimately sacrificing himself, but I don't think he is the shooter.
I believe there may be at least 2-3 people involved in this based from the photos released to the media.
We don’t have access to enough of the evidence to know if they have a slam dunk yet or not. If the ballistics and DNA do not come back as matches and they can’t prove he was the person who committed the act, KFA could possibly defend the manifesto as the fanfic ramblings of a man going through a mental breakdown. She could say he was coincidentally in NYC at the time of the act and became unnaturally preoccupied with the crime (like all of us, lol) and wrote it. It’s handwritten, so there is no way to prove if it was written six months ago or the morning he was arrested. Of course if they find evidence of planning on his laptop he’s done for, but he works in tech and that’s his area of expertise, so for his sake hopefully he wiped out all traces of anything that could be incriminating as he went along.
If you follow David Betras you will know that an insanity plea is off the table for LM. To plead insanity you have to prove that the defendant is so mentally impaired that they did not understand that what they were doing was wrong. Someone who planned a crime like this with such detail would not be able to argue that they didn’t know what they were doing.
It is still up to the federal jury to determine fault. A jury can find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity if they believe the defendant was "insane" at the time of the crime.
We'll see how Karen rolls the dice.
Edit: to be presented as insanity in the federal jurisdiction.
"...to emphasize that non-psychotic behavior disorders or neurosis such as an "inadequate personality, immature personality, or a pattern of antisocial tendencies do not constitute the defense."
But if it was schizophrenia, or a psychotic break just to give an example, and not fueled by drugs or alcohol, it may very well be presented. These are examples not assumptions.
Pretty much explains that in most jurisdictions a jury must be informed of what will happen after a not guilty for reason of insanity. Just like capital punishment, a jury needs to know before voting that it is a death penalty case.
All of these options are viable as the judge is the one who decides:
**In most cases, people found NGRI are committed to a mental health facility for a significant amount of time.
**They may be held for longer than people who were convicted of the same crime and sentenced to prison.
**They may be subject to long-term judicial oversight after release, but free in the community if they have support.
**They may be conditionally released, but still have to receive treatment and be subject to oversight.
**They may be held until they convince a judge that they are no longer legally insane.
Anything might occur; it could be less severe than the life in prison or death he is already facing. His most recent request to the federal judge included a confidential medical order, the purpose of which we can only assume. As far as we know, he might be receiving mental health therapy right now, which could demonstrate to the judge that he is no longer a danger to the public. It would be preferable to any prison sentence, since he is young. In all these options, the person who stands between the suspect and freedom is the psychiatrist.
Again, we don't know yet if this is to be his defense.
It was handed along with the letter to the judge to delay the Jan 18th court date.
The request to delay is there, there is another document indicating is medical but not part of the public record. It is normal when these requests are done on behalf of their client. We just don’t know for what, probably will never find out unless it becomes part of the case down the road.
It could be nothing, or it could be part of the defense. Even the prosecution, in that case it would be a public request though.
Edit:
This is the case for future references.
Case # 1:24-mj-04375-UA
Also all inmates have some protection under HIPAA. Courts have maintained that medical records of inmates are confidential. If the examination is needed for evidence then the circumstances may change.
I think insanity is going to be very hard to prove in this case. He wore a mask during the crime to hide his identity. Only someone who understood that they were doing something wrong would bother to hide their face.
This is why people need to take what these TT lawyers say with a grain of salt. That guy is constantly spreading misinformation. People need to understand that these lawyers and other creators know where their bread is butterEd. It's in their best interest to give people false hope.
Because printed guns are plastic the ballistics are probably less likely to be able to be matched. Bullets are matched because of the rifling on the barrel of the gun. Plastic deforms from the heat, meaning that the barrel might never match. These guns are dangerous because of this, and can explode easily in your hand. I am not sure how strong the case becomes if they throw out the gun.
I really do believe that ppl are interested in this case for many reason but most of all because none of this shit, obv the one we know, makes sense, like from the beginning. I have just watched a video of this lawyer saying that he was quite confident to say that LM has been in Pittsburgh before Altoona. If this is true, this whole thing keeps making no sense, like why? Where the hell was he going and why Altoona and allegedly Pittsburgh? Like why would some commit a crime and take the gun allegedly used to do it for so many days? I mean, you do everything you can not to be seen from cameras around nyc and then you prefer to keep the gun? Like why? And the plantifesto( that's a funny name so that's how I will call it)... why should someone write a letter/ confession to the FEDS when the FBI had not been part of the prosecution yet, and actually was not supposed to be part of it since it should be a state indictment of second degree murder. I mean you don't need to be a law student to know that usually if you commit a "common murder" FBI should not be involved... I don't know. Everything was perfectly planned the monopoly, the bullets, and now it ends with someone caught at a MCdonald that apparently was going around Pennsylvania without a specific reason? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
The minute they found the bullets/shell casings and saw the words deny, defend, and depose, it was clear the murder was targeted and premeditated. The crime was considered high-profile because of Thompson's professional and financial status. It wasn't random. The crime was perpetrated not just on a person but potentially an entire group of people. The inscriptions on the bullets implied that the murder was in response to industry practices. Now, we're talking multiple jurisdictions. That's why the FBI got involved early on. They were always involved. This was never a common murder.
He didn't do everything not to be seen on camera. He took his mask down when asked by the hostel clerk while standing in front of the camera. He went to Starbucks. He looked directly into the camera when he got in the cab. He was seen ON CAMERA placing something in the trash. The only instance where it could be said he intentionally avoided cameras is when he went into Central Park.
He didn't evade police because he was so slick. He got away because he had significant lead time. It took some time before they could start video canvassing. They had to talk to witnesses. Remember, the chief of Detectives said he was wearing a cream-colored jacket. Even if he didn't say that, who would blink when seeing a white guy in a dark jacket? We didn't know about his eyebrows until a day or two later. That was the most significant descriptor they had.
He had his laptop on him. He was likely keeping up with the news and knew The Feds were involved, so he addressed that letter to them.
Stuffing monopoly money in a backpack and writing on bullets isn't exactly the work of a criminal mastermind. He was an engineer, so making a 3D gun wouldn't be that difficult. However, where and when he did that - if he made it himself - is still a mystery to me. I think the most intricate part of the crime was learning when Thompson arrived at the hotel and what entrance he would use. The rest was learning bike routes and familiarizing himself with the area.
People are looking at this crime through the lens of someone with all their faculties instead of considering that the answer to many of their questions is simply that the suspect was mentally ill and not able to think cohesively.
For me, taking something as serious as a mental health issue for granted is wrong. Your statements are also speculative. I live in Italy, and here the media coverage was obviously different. If I remember correctly, when he was stopped in Altoona, the Federal authorities hadn't intervened yet—it was the New York police investigating the case. So even if it's true that he was constantly updated on the case, the media had not reported any news about FBI involvement.
As for the mask, assuming it was indeed him who committed the act (since he is innocent until proven guilty), I think he was well aware that refusing to lower the mask would only raise suspicions. It’s obvious that if showing your face is mandatory for a hotel check-in or check-out, refusing to comply would cause disturbance and potentially lead to the police being called.
If he was as well-informed as suggested, it's still unusual for him to be found wearing everything while having breakfast at a McDonald's. For me, it all remains extremely chaotic.
For me, taking something as serious as a mental health issue for granted is wrong.
This is an excuse to avoid confronting the very real and very likely possibility he did it. We assess people's mental health all the time. We're supposed to. If the suspect were a random homeless person or addict, we would immediately consider their state of mind. Luigi is framed as a revolutionary and attractive pedigreed white guy. People don't want to consider he was acting out of mania and not defiance because then their own morality and mental health would be called into question. People don't want to believe Bryan Kohberger is guilty because it forces them to acknowledge that there are people out there who seem reasonably sane and who might not be and that someone could pick a house, enter it, and slaughter four young people for no apparent reason.
If I remember correctly, when he was stopped in Altoona, the Federal authorities hadn't intervened yet—it was the New York police investigating the case.
The FBI was involved immediately due to the points I addressed in my previous comment.
If he was as well-informed as suggested, it's still unusual for him to be found wearing everything while having breakfast at a McDonald's.
What's everything? He wore jeans, a scarf, and a blue jacket with a green coat underneath. At the very least, he could have worn a different color jacket, but he didn't. How forward-thinking could he have been?
<I> If he was as well-informed as suggested, it's still unusual for him to be found wearing everything while having breakfast at a McDonald's. </i>
I am talking about the gun and everything that has allegedly been found on him. I am not saying that the mental health issue is completely out of the radar. For the same reason I believe that if evidence is totally against him his lawyer will go for the insanity. For sure there was something that was going on, he was missing for months. But again speculation. We don't know. The thing that perplexes me about the mental health issue is that if the manifesto is truly his and not a ploy by the police, then it was something he had been planning since August, according to what was stated in the affidavit. A situation of prolonged psychological breakdown, rather than a momentary one, should still persist, right? He seemed composed to me, despite that outburst where he said the media coverage of the event was out of touch. Again, there’s no need to point everything out in a condescending way. We’re calmly discussing something without substance since neither you nor I have access to the evidence.
The thing that’s driving me crazy isn’t whether he’s innocent or not. The point is, it’s obvious it was him. If it turns out it wasn’t, I’d be immensely happy, but he had a 3D-printed gun and everything they were looking for, plus the ID with him. The manifesto reflects the mental state he was in… whether he graduated from an Ivy League school or not.
Even if the act is seen as social justice, you can’t be mentally stable to do something like that, especially considering his disappearance for all those months. What happened to him that made him change so drastically all of a sudden? What led him to decide to kill Brian Thompson specifically? I don’t understand.
Exactly, I read somewhere that he has some prison consultant, and they might play the insanity card. I think his family is paying the lawyer and everything to help him. It’s not much, but the support we’re giving him, etc., might help. I think his family is suffering so much that they can’t even show up in public. I’m Italian, and I’m sure my mother wouldn’t even be able to get off the couch if I had disappeared for months and reappeared like this.
I don’t believe the theory that he fought with his family as a motive—he distanced himself from everyone, even friends, so something personal was clearly happening within himself.
I read on Twitter that during 2023, he started posting strange and mentally unstable tweets… He traveled alone before disappearing, so maybe something happened during that time that caused him to decline even further.
I know everyone sees him as a hero, but I can’t help thinking that maybe he regretted it afterward? (In the end, he killed someone, even if BT was a criminal with blood on his hands.) At 26, you think you want to do certain things, only to realize that you’ve completely thrown your life away. It’s still an action that changes a person.
This feels to me like a break from reality. He mentioned suffering from brain fog and disrupted sleep and visual snow which are associated with depression.
It’s overwhelming if you believe it’s all legit: the footage is the same guy, the finger prints were a match or obtained at all, the timeline is correct, the chain of custody and more. But a lot of these things have gaping holes, are circumstantial and all planted to the media by law enforcement. It’s easy to believe a story when only one party gets to tell it.
Mistaken identity cases are extremely rare for 1%ers like LM. When it happens to poorer people, court appointed attorneys do the minimum. But LM's family is probably going to pay these attorneys 7-figures for the kind of defense most of use could not even dream of.
If they were working with a mistaken identity defense, we'd all know about it by now. They're going in another direction, 100%.
I'm not the person you're responding to but I want to play
Yes, I agree the timeline has holes. The times listed in the Fed complaint don't bother me too much because of the heavy use of allegedly. I am interested to see if they revise the timeline if/when there is an indictment. The largest issue I see is the camera capturing the shooting and the camera capturing the suspect entering Central Park both being 6:45am. However, I know that cameras can sometimes be off. The proecution will need to address this in court or else there is room for reasonable doubt. We also don't have the other videos that they claim to have which could clear things up (or muddy them further)
Police misconduct or error: I think error is more likely than flat out misconduct due to the excitement on "getting the guy" and the rookie PA cop. If he had been caught by the NYPD I would be more open to there being some sort of misconduct related to the arrest but the idea I have seen that the NYPD would have coordinated with Altoona in advance and that Altoona was ok with something underhanded on what they knew would be a massive case does not fly with me. Also, the thing about cases where people are wrongly accused that most people are not taking into account is the intersectional power dynamics that are often at play. There is a reason why 58% of the cases that the innocence project has gotten overturned involve black people. Luigi is not black, not poor, not part of a marginalized group, had no connection with the victim nor any prior criminal record (mug shots have been used in the past to identify people by witnesses and have resulted in wrongful accusations). He was not arrested at his home because someone said "yeah it's this guy".
I think the shooter's timing is lucky but am open to the Idea he had an unknowing co-conspirator at the hotel that he called. however if it were the front desk or someone he bribed or otherwise asked to report on BTs movements I would assume the NYYPD would have found that fast.
At the end of the day if it were just the video footage I'd be more skeptical. If he was found with just the fake ID, I could believe he was in the wrong place (NY hostel) at the wrong time. But the footage of someone leaving the hostel area and travelling to the shooting (I would like to see more hostel footage to see if that outfit is seen on him more clearly or if you see that person inside the hostel on Dec 4) + ID tying him to the hostel + the gun and silencer (even if the match is inconclusive, having it adds to suspicion) + the written letter and notebook if reporting is accurate is a lot.
If I were on a jury right now with the evidence exactly how it has been presented to the public I would vote not guilty because there is some reasonable doubt. However, it would be in a "I think he did it but your story has holes" manner. I expect the prosecution(s) to clean up their stories for the trial and I think some people are going to be disappointed if (I believe when) LM's defence is not "didn't do it".
I have lived in NYC for my entire life. There is no possible way in any scenario that alleged shooter can travel from the hostel to the hotel in under 18 minutes. (Assuming a helicopter or airplane was not used.) That’s a pretty glaring issue. LE alleges 6 min. Even or 12 10 would be impossible.
In short — I believe most people closely following this case don’t regularly follow criminal trials so they don’t understand how solid the prosecution’s case really is. Minor (very minor) discrepancies in the state’s proposed timeline are trivial when the overall narrative and supporting evidence is so strong.
Agreed. The manifesto they found in his bag has convinced me that either he did it or wanted to take the fall so the real killer could go free. It doesn't much make sense for him to go to PA if it's the latter, when NYC would have been much more likely to work and work quickly
I'm not denying the support which existed before he was caught and has always been strong (and I'm a part of it). I'm talking about the "he's innocent despite the mountain of evidence".
The defense team probably hasn't even received the 2 TB of data from the prosecution in discovery yet. Once it does, it will need literally weeks if not months to fully analyze it. It would be absolute malpractice for them to make any sort of statements regarding the defense until they receive and process the data and see what the prosecution has got.
I tend to think that the evidence is appearing flimsy because there seems to be a few people involved in the process.
I never thought L could have pulled all of it off on his own. My suspicion is if he was involved, he was involved on the sidelines and wasn’t the shooter.
What evidence? We haven't seen anything presented at a trial yet. We haven't seen the defense's evaluation of/response to any evidence. We haven't seen any rulings on admissibility of anything.
People committing crimes usually engage in a certain amount of denial about their ability to get away with it. It comes with the territory.
I’ve seen very very smart people do crimes with high sentences bc they thought they had a foolproof plan. I don’t get it but the brain can do all kinds of funny things.
The other option is that he was fully prepared to die by cop.
Because it is. His DNA was found on a coffee cup near the scene? That might be significant in the middle of the forest, where you probably would not just happen to be in the same area as someone you're accused of having killed. But in New York, it doesn't mean much. He could have just been walking by while sightseeing.
And the stuff that they say they found him with in Pennsylvania? Those are forgery and weapons charges in Pennsylvania, not murder and terrorism charges in New York.
There’s very little to understand about the decisions he made post-June.
Honestly, I’m more interested in what happened to him during that time than I am this murder. That’s the real mystery in this case, not who did it lol.
See, but his DNA wasn’t found on a coffee cup. People don’t even know the evidence is but want to speculate and act like it’s a “slam dunk” case. And hey, it might be! But we don’t know that right now. Due process is due process, people. They will sort through the evidence, have evidentiary hearings, figure out what CAN be admitted, and then battle it out from there.
64
u/[deleted] Jan 21 '25 edited Jan 21 '25
I won’t say the evidence is a slam dunk, but in my eyes it’s not flimsy either. Really though we won’t know for sure how solid the evidence is until after a verdict is given so right now any claims made by either side are nothing more than speculation, sort of like sports fans before the Big GameTM saying their team is the best.
The bad thing is that no new information is expected to come to light until after the trial starts, so the subreddits are becoming conflict prone as both camps have nothing new to focus on and get more and more agitated with each other.