Luigi Mangione: Manifesto, Manhunt, and Moral Divide

Panelists:

Law & Crime analysts Jesse Weber (moderator), Angenette Levy, and Elizabeth Millner, and NewsNation host, Ashleigh Banfield

Going into this panel, I knew it would be divisive. I’ve personally wavered on whether Luigi Mangione was justified in murdering United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. The murder was shown on all the news outlets. It was an unusual situation right from the beginning, as an armchair observer. A man with a backpack and hooded sweatshirt walked behind another man. He raised a gun, pointed and targeted, then shot the other man in front of people and cameras.

The panel broke down the scene nearly second by second, but much of it is speculation based on law enforcement’s notes. The precise moment of the murder, as explained, was that Mangione shot once which made Thompson begin to spin around. Then a second shot was fired.

As far as we were told, none of the journalists on the panel will be working for either the prosecution or defense. Yet, it came across that they clearly had a bullseye painted on Mangione, especially Banfield. I do respect her for not holding back. She stated that her belief is that murder is wrong no matter how bad the other person is. She backed up her stance by explaining that Mangione came from a wealthy family and had a relative in state politics. She said if Mangione had wanted to make healthcare policy change, he could have used his personal resources and not resort to murder of a CEO from a company to which he never had a connection.

Before Banfield stood to give her strong statements, the panel did something I believe was unscrupulous. They showed a deep fake A.I. video of “Mangione’s movements” using scans of his face and clothing to paste on a CGI “person.” All of them were seemingly proud of this fake video. They talked about his smile and his good looks. They took what was real, such as a statement from a hotel desk clerk who said he was flirty, and they made this artificial version of him act out those pick-up artist motions and body language.

It looked like a camera operator was following Mangione all day and even interacting with him to get those emotional responses.

I’ll agree, Mangione did get caught smiling from time to time. However, in the real footage of his capture and “perp walk” shackled in chains and an orange jumpsuit, he was screaming about his beliefs. He was not smiling or flirting by any means. This panel allowed for that short moment of anger to be more realistic. The rest? If the producer of this A.I. didn’t personally use the media clip as a foundation, then it’s speculative fiction. And that scares the hell out of me knowing the world is moving into acceptance of whatever A.I. shows them. It’s fake. That’s what the “A” stands for!

In court cases, there have been recreations used for a long time. They have video barely as good as the SIMS and usually worse quality, because it costs money to have make animations. If you’re a gamer, think about the character generators. You can enter the height, body shape, skin color, hair style, clothing, emotional expression, and even boob size. If this sort of information is feed into A.I. which is already known to have bias, the U.S. judicial system is looking at being a tool (as it has been) for misogynists, racists, and xenophobes, rather than learning to be better at judicial reform.

In 2016, the Defense Council Journal published a paper about the nacient CGI version of recreated events.

Although animations and simulations can assist jurors in understanding complex issues, they can also distract from and distort the facts of a case. In recognition of the power these new evidentiary tools can hold over jurors, courts have erected barriers to admission of this evidence in order to ensure that such evidence helps, more than it hurts, the fact-finder’s search for the truth.

Computer-generated ‘‘animations’’ are generally considered to be demonstrative evidence and can be thought of as visual aids used in support of witness testimony. —People v. Cauley, 32 P.3d 602, 606-607
(Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Their purpose is to help the jury understand a witness’s testimony, and they do not purport to be scientific recreations of an actual event.—Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing Datskow v. Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Prods., 826 F. Supp. 677, 686 (W.D.N.Y. 1993)).

To the extent that animations do recreate events, they can only do so in furtherance of visually representing a witness’s belief about what transpired.—Id.

An animation has only secondary relevance and ‘‘must rely on other material testimony for relevance.’’—5 Clark v. Cantrell, 529 S.E.2d 528, 535 (S.C. 2000).

If this 2016 paper is still relevant, the key here is that animations have to enforce witness testimony. If the federal, NY, or PA prosecutorial teams want to use/license/buy this A.I. video, it sounds like they’d be able to try. A defense attorney would try to get the “evidence” thrown out which would inevitably leave it up the judge whether or not the juries can see this deep fake as real supplemental evidence.

Elizabeth Millner took hold of the audience when she asked for participation. The audience was asked to turn on their cell phones’ flashlight apps and hold them up for “yes” and leave down for “no” for her series of three questions:

• Do you think Luigi Mangione is guilty?
• Would you acquit him?
• Have you had a bad healthcare industry experience?

The panel also showed a clip of woman who defended a legal defense fund for Mangione. When the audience was asked if anyone who donated to that would be willing to speaking publicly, one woman bravely got up to admit she donated and she didn’t feel guilty about it. As of this writing, the LDF goal is USD $1,500,000 and has raised USD $1,264,018.

The panel moved on to give that last bit of time to honor the “family man” and victim, Brian Thompson. If any kind of murder is morally wrong, why should we know or care that Thompson was a family man? Besides being ultimately responsible for the decisions of United Healthcare rejecting thousands of valid insurance claims, Thompson could be a horrendous person. Those on the side of “all murder is wrong” should not waver in their stance if the victim had been a wife-beating puppy-killer (*coughKristyNoemcough*).

I was more impressed that this discussion talked about Constitutional rights, namely the Fourth Amendment rights. It seems that when Mangione was surrounded by local police officers in a McDonald’s, that would technically be considered a contained interrogation and not a casual interview. Mangione was not read his Miranda Warning rights. The police also read papers written by Mangione which the press are calling his “manifesto.” Are random thoughts scrambled on papers not in any particular order still a manifesto? Maybe I don’t know enough about the etymology of the word. Regardless of what’s it called, Mangione’s rights against illegal search and seizure are likely to be part of his defense strategy.

This CrimeCon panel gave people things to ponder.

Resources:

[1] Webster, V. and Bourn III, Fred E. (Trey), The Use of Computer-Generated Animations and Simulations at Trial, Defense Council Journal, published by International Association of Defense Counsel, accessed 11-September-2025.

Photos taken from complaint filed by United States District Court Southern District of New York, justice.govPDF of complaint

Case Information:

Federal Case Updates USA v. Mangione – Case # 1:24-mj-04375

State of New York Case Updates People v. Mangione – Case # IND-75657-24/001

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Case Updates Commonwealth v. Mangione – Case # MJ-24102-CR-0000623-2024

Founder and Editor-in-Chief of AmberUnmasked.com and Vodka O'Clock Podcast. Author of The Farrah Wethers Mysteries, comic book short stories, prose, and non-fiction. Cosplayer and figure model.