I mean he was arrested based on low-quality security camera pictures that barely, if at all, looked like him. And the evidence seemed too obvious unless he intended to be arrested. The officers who arrested him also said something like “I saw him and just knew it was him”, which does not inspire confidence. There’s a not insignificant chance the evidence they did “find” on him was planted.
I mean most convictions (I’d hope) are based on evidence that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is: If we discount the possibility of intentional martyrdom, then it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime that would get the whole nation hot on their tail. Not saying he definitively didn’t do it, but I won’t discount the possibility of the contents of his bag being planted.
What if that is true though? What if it’s even virtually guaranteed to be true, given the effort and time required to reasonably prove something like that combined with the limited resources given (and which we can afford to give) to the justice system to do so, and the sheer number of crimes to deal with?
Honestly, the more I hear about the number of cases of people being convicted falsely, or where it’s hard to tell if they truly were guilty, due to evidence being poor, or misconstrued, or based on faulty foresic science or known unreliable sources like eyewitness testimony, the more I worry that if called to serve on a jury I’d be effectively unable to do so, because I have come to doubt if the justice system is even capable of proving something beyond what I would consider to be a reasonable doubt.
The public does not know the evidence against him, yet. The prosecution has that under lock and key. We only know the relatively small handful of photos that surfaced in the media, and we don’t even know if the prosecution will use those.
Watching carefully here, and I have my own personal opinion and hope for the trial outcome will be, but let’s not hyperbolically jump to “we know what the evidence is” (or isn’t)
I hope Luigi gets the jury nullification and walks free. But let’s not pretend that he’s falsly accused or was illegally detained/arrested.
The police can completely detain someone based only on a passing resemblance to a grainy security cam image of a suspect. They can detain someone off even a vague description or sketch. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and that is a very low bar.
In order to arrest, they need the higher standard of probable cause. They have to have some sort of evidence that leads them to believe that you have, are, or were about to commit a crime, or observe you in said commission of a crime. I don’t have all the details from the arrest, but it sounds like he was identified visually, yes, but also that he provided them the same fake id which was also used to check into the hostel in Manhattan where the security cam footage came from. That is enough to connect him to the crime and gain probable cause for the arrest. Actually, even independent of the shooting, providing false identification to the police during there investigation is itself an arrestable crime in Pennsylvania, too.
And even if you think that the evidence that was on his person at the McDonald’s in Pittsburgh was wholly or partially planted, it is not the only evidence they have. For example, they have a water bottle and protein bar wrapper found near the shooting that the shooter left behind. Both have Luigi’s fingerprints on them.
Luigi did it. That much seems apparent. Now whether that makes him “guilty”… that’s another question.
Do you have a source for your claim about the fingerprints? I recall that there was a bottle and a wrapper near the scene of the shooting that may have been left by the shooter, but this is the first I’m hearing about fingerprints.
I also don’t understand how tying someone to the hostel would tie them to the crime. We saw the hostel security images during the manhunt, but those images didn’t look like an obvious match to the security footage of the shooting. The eyebrows looked different and we really couldn’t see much of the shooters face for comparison. Maybe the police have evidence that establishes a string connection between flirty hostel checkin guy and the shooter, but i have not seen it.
I’m not saying that it wasn’t him. But I have not seen enough evidence to say that Luigi did it…
There are a surprising number of people who are absolutely convinced that he’s not the killer through some sort of police coverup or something. It really doesn’t make sense to me. Fuck the police, but if he isn’t the real killer, the real killer could just repeat what they did and the whole thing would be exposed.
I mean, they caught Timothy McVeigh because of a missing license plate. It’s not unusual to get caught over something that’d have been otherwise insignificant.
What makes you say that?
I mean he was arrested based on low-quality security camera pictures that barely, if at all, looked like him. And the evidence seemed too obvious unless he intended to be arrested. The officers who arrested him also said something like “I saw him and just knew it was him”, which does not inspire confidence. There’s a not insignificant chance the evidence they did “find” on him was planted.
By those standards, most convictions are based on evidence that’s “flimsy as fuck”.
They really are.
It’s kind of scary.
I mean most convictions (I’d hope) are based on evidence that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is: If we discount the possibility of intentional martyrdom, then it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime that would get the whole nation hot on their tail. Not saying he definitively didn’t do it, but I won’t discount the possibility of the contents of his bag being planted.
You vastly overestimate the intelligence of most people.
And they’re underestimating the laziness of investigators and prosecutors.
What if that is true though? What if it’s even virtually guaranteed to be true, given the effort and time required to reasonably prove something like that combined with the limited resources given (and which we can afford to give) to the justice system to do so, and the sheer number of crimes to deal with?
Honestly, the more I hear about the number of cases of people being convicted falsely, or where it’s hard to tell if they truly were guilty, due to evidence being poor, or misconstrued, or based on faulty foresic science or known unreliable sources like eyewitness testimony, the more I worry that if called to serve on a jury I’d be effectively unable to do so, because I have come to doubt if the justice system is even capable of proving something beyond what I would consider to be a reasonable doubt.
The public does not know the evidence against him, yet. The prosecution has that under lock and key. We only know the relatively small handful of photos that surfaced in the media, and we don’t even know if the prosecution will use those.
Watching carefully here, and I have my own personal opinion and hope for the trial outcome will be, but let’s not hyperbolically jump to “we know what the evidence is” (or isn’t)
Wasn’t the evidence the things they found in his bag? The gun and manifesto?
I hope Luigi gets the jury nullification and walks free. But let’s not pretend that he’s falsly accused or was illegally detained/arrested.
The police can completely detain someone based only on a passing resemblance to a grainy security cam image of a suspect. They can detain someone off even a vague description or sketch. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and that is a very low bar.
In order to arrest, they need the higher standard of probable cause. They have to have some sort of evidence that leads them to believe that you have, are, or were about to commit a crime, or observe you in said commission of a crime. I don’t have all the details from the arrest, but it sounds like he was identified visually, yes, but also that he provided them the same fake id which was also used to check into the hostel in Manhattan where the security cam footage came from. That is enough to connect him to the crime and gain probable cause for the arrest. Actually, even independent of the shooting, providing false identification to the police during there investigation is itself an arrestable crime in Pennsylvania, too.
And even if you think that the evidence that was on his person at the McDonald’s in Pittsburgh was wholly or partially planted, it is not the only evidence they have. For example, they have a water bottle and protein bar wrapper found near the shooting that the shooter left behind. Both have Luigi’s fingerprints on them.
Luigi did it. That much seems apparent. Now whether that makes him “guilty”… that’s another question.
To be clear, we have no idea what evidence they have, except for what has been sworn to under oath. And that evidence may or may not be reliable.
Don’t assume any press release contained any facts.
There is some flat-earther level of denial going on with Luigi supporters.
I guess I was wrong then. Gotta thank Cunningham’s law.
Do you have a source for your claim about the fingerprints? I recall that there was a bottle and a wrapper near the scene of the shooting that may have been left by the shooter, but this is the first I’m hearing about fingerprints.
I also don’t understand how tying someone to the hostel would tie them to the crime. We saw the hostel security images during the manhunt, but those images didn’t look like an obvious match to the security footage of the shooting. The eyebrows looked different and we really couldn’t see much of the shooters face for comparison. Maybe the police have evidence that establishes a string connection between flirty hostel checkin guy and the shooter, but i have not seen it.
I’m not saying that it wasn’t him. But I have not seen enough evidence to say that Luigi did it…
There are a surprising number of people who are absolutely convinced that he’s not the killer through some sort of police coverup or something. It really doesn’t make sense to me. Fuck the police, but if he isn’t the real killer, the real killer could just repeat what they did and the whole thing would be exposed.
I mean, they caught Timothy McVeigh because of a missing license plate. It’s not unusual to get caught over something that’d have been otherwise insignificant.
Or there may have been some parallel construction going on.
With McVeigh? Doubtful, read up on that whole situation, he was definitely not innocent.