I’m not a judge and this isn’t a court of law. People assume guilt or innocence for themselves all the time. Obviously if I were a judge or on a jury I’d want a lot more evidence. Hell, if I were on a jury, I’d be pushing for jury nullification. I don’t see anything wrong with that CEO getting got.
Tainted evidence, media portrayal, dirty cops, this is all standard for the criminal justice system. That’s how loads of cases work, and we don’t all jump to immediately assume the state is framing every single person they accuse of anything.
My question is, if Luigi really is just some person completely unrelated to the crime who is being framed for it, why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him? If there were reason to believe he was being framed, with as much public support as he has, I’d assume we’d have an alibi showing where he was at the time of the shooting, or people talking about how they don’t believe he could have done it.
Everyone personally or directly connected to Luigi himself are acting exactly as I would expect them to act if he had actually done it.
I ultimately don’t really care whether or not Luigi personally was the guy who did it or not. Regardless, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the murder. I’m just trying to find out if there’s something I haven’t heard about. Some reason or alibi or explanation to believe he’s being framed beyond “we like what he is accused of doing and he seems like a pretty good guy.”
why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him?
His lawyers are being sensible and saving it for the trial.
He was probably told by his lawyers to do the same.
He lived alone IIRC, so he might not have an alibi. However, he was wearing clothes that were similar - but not identical - to the Adjuster, which… if he was changing clothes to shake off pursuit, you think he’d wear something very different instead.
The NYPD was probably under immense pressure from rich people to find the culprit - so they found a patsy. Wouldn’t be the first time. The ridiculous thing is all the news outlets loudly talking about how Luigi committed the murder as if it’s a foregone conclusion. Also probably from immense pressure from rich people. Someone needs to be punished, in a very public way, to keep the plebians in line.
There are some pretty grainy photos with a partially obscured face that also don’t depict the person in question actually comitting a crime. In any other case they would be circumstantial evidence and probably not even enough to hold someone on.
(its been a while since I saw the photos so a quick google search might not be all of them)
I’m not trying to determine guilt. I’m trying to find out why so many people seem absolutely certain he was framed when nobody connected to the case on the defense side are acting like it is.
I mean, we (the public, not the justice system) treat people who plead not guilty as if they did it all the time. How many times have we seen videos of police violence, for example, and known the guy did it regardless of what the court says?
I’m not talking about whether he should be criminally convicted. Even if he had filmed the entire thing and that was in the public, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my purpose here.
I’m solely trying to answer this one question:
Why do so many people seem so certain Luigi is being framed by the state when nobody connected to the defense in the case is acting like it is or have said that it is?
So instead we assume he’s being framed despite no evidence being provided?
And, to be clear, there has been evidence provided that he did it. It’s very questionable evidence from an even more questionable source, but it’s not no evidence.
Compared to no evidence or even a claim from Luigi or his lawyers that he’s being framed.
I’m not a judge and this isn’t a court of law. People assume guilt or innocence for themselves all the time. Obviously if I were a judge or on a jury I’d want a lot more evidence. Hell, if I were on a jury, I’d be pushing for jury nullification. I don’t see anything wrong with that CEO getting got.
Tainted evidence, media portrayal, dirty cops, this is all standard for the criminal justice system. That’s how loads of cases work, and we don’t all jump to immediately assume the state is framing every single person they accuse of anything.
My question is, if Luigi really is just some person completely unrelated to the crime who is being framed for it, why is there no pushback from him, his lawyers, or people who know him? If there were reason to believe he was being framed, with as much public support as he has, I’d assume we’d have an alibi showing where he was at the time of the shooting, or people talking about how they don’t believe he could have done it.
Everyone personally or directly connected to Luigi himself are acting exactly as I would expect them to act if he had actually done it.
I ultimately don’t really care whether or not Luigi personally was the guy who did it or not. Regardless, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Luigi or the murder. I’m just trying to find out if there’s something I haven’t heard about. Some reason or alibi or explanation to believe he’s being framed beyond “we like what he is accused of doing and he seems like a pretty good guy.”
His lawyers are being sensible and saving it for the trial.
He was probably told by his lawyers to do the same.
He lived alone IIRC, so he might not have an alibi. However, he was wearing clothes that were similar - but not identical - to the Adjuster, which… if he was changing clothes to shake off pursuit, you think he’d wear something very different instead.
The NYPD was probably under immense pressure from rich people to find the culprit - so they found a patsy. Wouldn’t be the first time. The ridiculous thing is all the news outlets loudly talking about how Luigi committed the murder as if it’s a foregone conclusion. Also probably from immense pressure from rich people. Someone needs to be punished, in a very public way, to keep the plebians in line.
Guilty by vibe. Got it.
deleted by creator
Is it common sense? I’ve seen no evidence that he did it other than the police saying he did and a gun/manifesto in a bag that broke chain of custody.
deleted by creator
There are some pretty grainy photos with a partially obscured face that also don’t depict the person in question actually comitting a crime. In any other case they would be circumstantial evidence and probably not even enough to hold someone on.
(its been a while since I saw the photos so a quick google search might not be all of them)
So you didn’t read what I wrote at all, did you?
I’m not trying to determine guilt. I’m trying to find out why so many people seem absolutely certain he was framed when nobody connected to the case on the defense side are acting like it is.
He plead not guilty. So until the government proves otherwise we must assume that some other really cool person killed that guy.
I mean, we (the public, not the justice system) treat people who plead not guilty as if they did it all the time. How many times have we seen videos of police violence, for example, and known the guy did it regardless of what the court says?
I’m not talking about whether he should be criminally convicted. Even if he had filmed the entire thing and that was in the public, I’d still be pushing for jury nullification. That’s not my purpose here.
I’m solely trying to answer this one question:
Why do so many people seem so certain Luigi is being framed by the state when nobody connected to the defense in the case is acting like it is or have said that it is?
Because the alternative is to assume he’s guilty despite no evidence being provided?
So instead we assume he’s being framed despite no evidence being provided?
And, to be clear, there has been evidence provided that he did it. It’s very questionable evidence from an even more questionable source, but it’s not no evidence.
Compared to no evidence or even a claim from Luigi or his lawyers that he’s being framed.
deleted by creator