Excerpt:
Prosecutors highlighted “about $10,000 — $8,000 in U.S. dollars and then $2,000 in foreign currency that was found on his person,” CNN correspondent Danny Freeman said following the court hearing.
“Also they said that he had a Faraday bag,” which blocks cell signals, a move that prosecutors alleged marked “an indication of criminal sophistication and reason they should hold him on bail,” Freeman continued.
After prosecutors made the claims, Mangione said he would like to “correct two things.”
“I don’t know where any of that money came from — I’m not sure if it was planted. And also, that bag was waterproof, so I don’t know about criminal sophistication,” the suspect said in a statement that suggested police framed him.
From the article:
They should have said “the suspect’s movements” or “the shooter’s movements”. Not “Mangione’s movements”. They are already presuming guilt by saying it was Mangione who was recorded. Newspapers used to be careful about doing this. I think they can be sued for defamation for this, can’t they?
Fuck Chomsky.
They said with no support…
Are you the CEO of a news corporation, bud?
He took Russia’s side in their invasion of Ukraine, which I don’t agree with, but truth is truth and he accurately describes how the media sways public opinion without outright lying.
Can you back up that claim with a link?
I only read Chomsky saying:
I mean, by your own comment, those aren’t great things. 2 is a whataboutism and 3 is the same as giving concessions to the Nazis and lead to WWII. Concessions have already been given to Russia in regards to their previous invasions of Georgia and Crimea. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Regardless of Chomsky’s stance on Russia and NATO though, he still describes media manipulation acutely. He just has a huge blind spot for when Russia is doing it
I don’t think it’s fair to say 2 is strictly whataboutism, because Chomsky has a founded fear that strengthening NATO as a military power through conflict escalation will lead to worse outcomes in the long run. That’s why it’s relevant to point out NATO war crimes.
As for 3, that’s a fair point, and I would press Chomsky to provide an option for de-escalation that doesn’t involve allowing Russia to keep any Ukrainian soil.
NATO has expanded significantly towards Russia since the SU fell. No nation would be fine with this. Imagine if China started a “defense agreement” with latin American countries. What do you think the US reaction would be to Mexico joining in? Or for a more real and historic example have a look at the Cuban missile crisis.
This does not justify Putins invasion, but comparing this to the appeasement politics towards Hitler doesn’t work, as Hitler wasn’t threatened by British and American troops stationed in Czechoslovakia or Austria.
For a bettet explanation i highly recommend watching some talks of John Mearsheimer, who forsaw a war in Eastern Europe as the result of the security architecture built by the US in the 90s and 2000s.
Sure, but I think you’d understand that I can’t just take pure speculation though. Could you please source your claim so I can consider what you’re saying when you say he “took Russia’s side”.
Would also be curious of the state he was in while saying that if true, as he’s nearly 100 years old at this point if I recall? Even our heroes get frail and wither, not necessarily representative of their true core positions.
I’m gonna guess he slings some porn…
Curious as to why you think this?
I’ve heard he’s a meany, but that’s all I know
It’s an American newspaper, so it’s up to the victim. Canada and EU have much stricter rules.
Maybe Luigi can sue them with all the money people on GoFundMe are desperate to give him.
I mean, if they want to go and taint every potential juror in the country they can go for it.
It seems kinda grey because they’re not saying he committed a crime they are saying that he was in certain camera frames and the police were looking for him. If the police announced a name then the news would be reporting fact. The camera bit could be debatable I think. If they were speaking more about the actions of the crime they’d have to alledge, which they did alledge about his “type” of bookbag.
I could be wrong I just found your comment interesting.
Yeah but by stating as a fact that it was Mangione who was witnessed and recorded they are stating as a fact that he is the killer, which we don’t know yet. That is-- or used to be – a big no no in reporting. But times have changed. Here is a link I found explaining how they are probably opening themselves up to a libel charge with this kind of language.
I think they’re saying it definitely was Mangione who was recorded at the hotel, which if he was checking in/out is pretty easy to prove. From there they lost track of him because they didn’t know his route or he just didn’t show up on any other cameras.
I agree that the wording is likely intentional to imply guilt, but is loose enough that they could claim that isn’t what they were doing.
Was it an employee or a bystander/customer? I’m confused.
All the accounts I’ve read say it was an employee of the McDonald’s who called police. But who knows? Probably one source printed that and then all the others just copied it.