It’s not up to you or me to say what’s admissable or not. The gun in the video is the gun in the backpack. If you want to argue the cops planted it, then you have to explain how they got it.
“Marked shell casings from the assassination scene match the gun found on the suspect. His fingerprints match some key items investigators found nearby. And he was arrested this week – after going silent from his mom and friends for months – with a fake ID and a handwritten “claim of responsibility” referencing the crime site.”
It’s not up to you or me to say what’s admissable or not. The gun in the video is the gun in the backpack. If you want to argue the cops planted it, then you have to explain how they got it.
Occams Razor - Luigi failed to ditch the gun.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-suspect-thursday-hnk
“Marked shell casings from the assassination scene match the gun found on the suspect. His fingerprints match some key items investigators found nearby. And he was arrested this week – after going silent from his mom and friends for months – with a fake ID and a handwritten “claim of responsibility” referencing the crime site.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/us/luigi-mangione-evidence-illegal-search
It might be the gun.
It might even have been in the backpack and Luigi just had it on him.
But it doesn’t matter, the cops pulled a Mark Furhman. They’re not used to having to follow the law, so they fuck up high profile shit.
Nothing in the backpack will be admissable. And all the evidence was from the backpack.
Ideally. Fruit of the poison tree and all that.
You don’t have a clue if they’re the same gun, shut the fuck up clown
Shell casings from the crime scene match the gun found in the backpack. It’s the same gun. See the cited article above.
If they planted the gun, shell casings wouldn’t be too hard to plant either.