All I’ve been able to find are cherry picked words and sentences the police tell the press in both’s attempts to spin it for their narratives.

Is it foolish to hope the public will get to read it in its relative entirety (a word or a name redacted is understandable, not entire paragraphs) in less than years or decades?

Legal process is a blindspot for me, I don’t know what they’re able to have as evidence that they can also keep from the public eye if they wish.

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    50·
    2 days ago

    To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

    Apparently this is it.

    • aasatru@kbin.earth
      3·
      2 days ago

      frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument.

      Fair enough.

      Here are the two sources he cites as examples:

      Elisabeth Rosenthal (2017) An American Sickness: How healthcare became big business and how you can take it back. Penguin Press.
      Michael Moore (2007) Sicko. Dog Eat Dog Films.

  • Sergio@slrpnk.netEnglish
    16·
    2 days ago

    WARNING: anyone possessing such a manifesto may be suspect of “ill will towards corporate America.”

    • gaael@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 days ago

      I am animated by ill will towards corporate anything tbh, corporate America only gets part of my hatred.

    • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
      401·
      3 days ago

      I saw this earlier, and some comments were saying that it’s fake. The reasons stated were

      • it doesn’t match the other snippets that were released (but those other snippets may not be real either, or this might be a separate document from the one at the arrest)

      • it doesn’t match his writing style (which might be reasonable given that it was hand written)

      Regardless, it might be better to wait for more confirmation

      • LukeS26 (He/They)@lemm.eeEnglish
        13·
        3 days ago

        Yeah I’m split on if it’s real or not. Like the released quotes don’t match at all, but it could also be that the handwritten one was a draft he cut down before posting.

        The roadtrip from presumably Maryland to California to visit the Monterey Bay Aquarium is also kinda weird, like it feels unlikely that someone who is experiencing back pain that bad would take a road trip that long, even with medicine. Even driving for a few hours straight as someone with a good back who is still young can make my back hurt, so I imagine that someone who was waking up screaming every night because of the pain wouldn’t be in a great position to drive cross country, no matter what medicine they were talking.

        The fact it was posted the day of the arrest is also at least suspicious, like he could have had the paper copy on him because he posted it earlier before being arrested/spotted, but idk.

        I kinda go back and forth on how much I believe it, so I’m definitely not saying it’s conclusively fake or anything. I do think waiting for confirmation is probably a good idea like you say though, but regardless of the veracity it’s definitely a heartbreaking piece of writing. So many of the stories people have shared, both in the wake of this and before, are so similar. I definitely believe this could be true.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.worldOP
      19·
      3 days ago

      Much obliged, and thank you!

      Edit-I agree with his overarching point:

      An active War is being waged upon the non-wealthy masses by the owners, a war sanctioned by our own government that will not intervene, whether the non-wealthy masses peacefully line up as is expected of them to get executed like good lil boys and girls in the name of private profit or not.

    • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      This one is fake. The (supposedly) real one has now been published by Ken Klippenstein, and is linked in another comment on this thread.

    • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
      9·
      3 days ago

      If this is real I have a lot of sympathy for this guy. There’s no way he will be getting the medical attention his chronic pain deserves.

    • pushECX@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 days ago

      Some say this one is fake. I’m not convinced either way. While this may not have been the “manifesto” that was found on him when he was caught, why couldn’t this have been written prior to the act and the one he was caught with written after?

  • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    151·
    3 days ago

    I read it yesterday from a link a friend shared - if it is the right document, that is. It seems like it is.

    And it’s what you expect: insurance screwed over his mom, and then him, so that plus a lot of stuff he was reading radicalized him to do what he did.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    156·
    3 days ago

    It’s not like the guys dead, or old.

    He’s 26, and they’ll almost definitely say it’s terrorism linked, so 20 to life in NY.

    He could be out before he’s 50 even if he loses.

    Guy is from a very wealthy family and has access to the best lawyers. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s bailed out even. It’s a thing in NY for murder charges, and sometimes there’s not even bail, you get out but up $0, even for murder.

    This guy wasn’t a mass shooter, he walked right past witnesses, but most importantly rich as fuck.

    We’ll know what’s in it, because he can just tell us even if the cops keep it.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 days ago

      People keep saying the family is so wealthy, but if that’s true; even they couldn’t keep up with the medical bills.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.worldOP
        4·
        3 days ago

        Yeah that is strange, the affluent usually have gold plated plans that aren’t subject to the same murderous tyranny most’s base level and/or employer provided garbage is. I thought those are the plans they point to as the US having the “best Healthcare in the world…” for the right people, god’s chosen affluenza sociopaths.

        I always saw those plans as the “In the little self-protecting country club” plans provided for the owners fellow owners in actual good faith since they’re seen as bona fide human beings and not exploitation livestock.

        As with anything in the owner’s completely seperate, segregated world, from vacation spots to Healthcare, the only gate they need to keep is prohibitive expense.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.worldOP
      8·
      3 days ago

      Can he talk to the public while in custody? Is that a right that he has or are there legal mechanisms to keep him segregated from making any public statements if they don’t like what he wants to say?

      • litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        19·
        3 days ago

        There are a number of rights which are curtailed when in custody – whether pre-trial or as part of a sentence – but even under the appalling incarceration standards in the USA, the right to free speech is not something which is substantially limited while in custody, barring some very particular circumstances.

        A defendant in jail awaiting trial has not, by definition, been convicted of any wrongdoing. So for pre-trial detention – where the purpose is to assure that the defendant won’t skip court – the only cognizable reason to curtail the defendant’s speech (either by mail, phone, or in-person) would be for jailhouse security reasons, as noted by various court rulings. The ACLU has litigated cases where prisons – ie post-conviction detention – violation the prisoners’ rights, so no doubt that pre-trial defendants in a jail would preserve more rights.

        An example where free speech continued even while serving a sentence is when the Menendez Brothers gave a phone interview from a California prison, as part of a new documentary on the 1989 murders they were convicted of, now under scrutiny.

        On the flip side, there are times when a defendant must have some speech curtailed prior to trial, even if they’re not in jail. Sam Bankman-Fried comes to mind, who was ordered pre-trial to not communicate with employees of his exchange (unless all lawyers are present) as the judge agreed with prosecutors that he could try to manipulate them into lying to the feds. At the time, he wasn’t in jail, but rather was at home under house arrest.

        What would be outrageous in that case was if the order on Bankman-Fried was more sweeping, such as being restricted from talking about his own case, for which he has a First Amendment right to do so. Only when his speech would unduly influence potential witnesses, potential jurors, or threaten the judicial process, is when the judge could impose additional controls on his speech.

        Appropriately, the First Amendment rights must be jealously guarded, even for people we might not agree with, precisely because it also protects people we do agree with.

        If Mangione wishes to recite the entirety of his manifesto from memory over the phone to a live TV audience, he probably can do so. The government would have a hard time claiming that the manifesto’s mere recitation is somehow an incitement to violence or threatens the judges, jurors, lawyers, or the public.