Luigi Mangione's defense told NY state judge it won't be ready for the Jun 8 trial, while prosecutor Joel Seidemann said he'll be ready and prepared for it. Here's a secret Joel doesn't want you to know-a recently opened NY commission where YOU, a member of the public, can report him and waste his time.

About Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct (CPC)

CPC has been slowly getting established over last 2-3years&only opened an online complaint portal in Oct 2024. However, CPC "has not yet done outreach to notify the public" that they're accepting complaints and that's why you're hearing it here first. You don't have to be lawyer to complain. It's not a lawsuit, public only needs to submit some evidence that shows Joel's (professional/personal) misconduct & CPC will do the investigations. CPC can make Joel respond to complaints, attend a hearing, etc.. all that can annoy him and waste his time in general - which we love to see 😌

As an example, Oct-Dec, 2024, after launching its online portal, CPC received 142 complaints - 14 came from "citizens" - people unrelated to any of the prosecutor's case. Again, this is after no outreach to let the public know about it was done!

What can the public complain about?

I mean, have y'all seen the way Trump looked at Mamdani..?? One letter from Luigi and suddenly this MAGA podcaster who hated him is now smitten with him. Trump would pardon him on the spot if he got to meet him. Or just someone tell trump that UHC CEO was a democrat and that Luigi is his fan - that's why Biden's admin framed him 😌↕

SHORT ANSWER: It is kind of true. The timestamp on the top screenshot is fake. But it's not too far off. The OG video doesn't have timestamps burned onto it. HOWEVER, there's more to this.

LONG ANSWER, FULL ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THIS.

1. BRIEF EXPLANATION OF 2 TYPES OF CCTV TIMESTAMPS.

Timestamps burned onto the CCTV footage itself - they become part of the picture and cannot be removed. Whatever was shown behind them - won't ever be visible. This seems to be the case of the bottom screenshot you've shared.

Timestamps in the metadata of the CCTV footage. They're not visible in the CCTV footage - so nothing is hidden, but they're easier to fake. They're in a separate file and usually require a specific software to view. This seems to be the case of the top screenshot you've shared - if you look up the video, it doesn't have any timestamps.

2. ANALYSIS OF CCTV FOOTAGE TIMESTAMPS FROM THE CRIME SCENE (TOP SCREENSHOT)

BUT various legal documents do list the time of incident as 6:44 or 6:45. Also, Manhattan DA's office seems to have shared the metadata of the CCTV footage with the media back in Dec'25. ABC, for example, included the timestamps in one of their videos, and they list the time as 6:44:18. Sources:

If you watch the full video, the suspect leaves the scene and crosses the street on foot ~ 23 seconds later, which would be at ~ 6:44:41. Not a good look on prosecutors who kept on saying in the legal docs that it happened "at (approximately) 6:45 a.m." - the suspect had already left the scene and UHC CEO was already dead at 6:45 a.m.

3. ANALYSIS OF CCTV FOOTAGE OF THE SUSPECT CYCLING AWAY (BOTTOM SCREENSHOT)

Now, the bottom screenshot comes from NewsNation's "exclusive" footage released on Dec 7, 2024. In which, the host Ashshleightgh Banfield (who, by the way, lusted after p*dofile Jeffrey Epstein) says that the timestamps on their video are definitely showing "the right time". She does point out that goes at odds with law enforcement's "6:45 a.m." narrative. Here's the relevant excerpt:

4. REAL LIFE DISTANCE & TIME COMPARISSON

I mapped both locations depicted in CCTV videos + the distance between them. Something to keep in mind: we don't actually know where exactly the suspect stashed (or when exactly he mounted) his electric bike. Feds said he mounted his bike on West 55th St., so I'll assume he covered the whole distance of the alleyway (75m / 245 feet) between East 54th St. and West 55th St. on foot.

Anyways, I'm being really pedantic here and it doesn't really matter, because even if we were to say that the suspect didn't walk at all, and covered the whole distance (0.31miles / 500meters) on his electric bicycle - without ever stopping - it would still mean that he did that in ~ 18 seconds. It would mean that he was going at around 62mph or 100km/h. And, folks, forget about electric bicycles - that's the speed at which cars go on highways. In other words, it's impossible. In other words, timestamps on one of these videos must be incorrect, unless:

5. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS.

The second video came from mainstream media - not prosecutors. So, there's a small possibility that it doesn't actually depict the suspect, but someone else. In this case, defense could use it as a proof that there were multiple similarly looking people in the area - casting doubt on prosecutor's tracking of them.

Metadata of the first video (and/or the video itself) has been altered. I'm just saying - it is a possibility. Especially, given that in most legal docs prosecutors list the time of the incident as "(approximately) 6:45 a.m.) - which would be incorrect.

Timestamps of one the videos were inaccurate. This can happen. In such cases, prosecutors get a witness to testify on he correct time. Such witness is usually a person who installed and/or maintained the CCTV equipment in question. We already saw one such witness during the Dec'25 suppression hearings, when prosecutors had someone briefly testify about McDonald's CCTV footage. So, prosecutors are likely going to get someone responsible for Hilton Hotel's CCTV and have them testify that the timestamps are off by a few minutes/seconds, but the footage is authentic (Essentially: "Trust me, bro"). Could such witnesses lie? Yes, of course. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted based solely on false prosecution's witness testimonies. Scientifically speaking, it's a f*cked up system. It's hard to disprove such testimonies, and it's going to get even more difficult at the age of fake AI videos. However, while CCTV footage with inaccurate timestamps is often admitted into evidence - the inaccurate timestamps do negatively affect "the weight of the evidence". This means that such footage is less likely to be viewed as credible evidence and less likely to be convincing. Which works in defense's favor. Additionally, this is not the only CCTV footage with inaccurate timestamps. For example, the footage of the suspect talking on the phone before the shooting is timestamped at ~7:29 a.m. - i.e. around 45minutes after the shooting. (Presumably, due to daylight savings time changes, but still - in a case, where every second is important and where law enforcement and prosecutors have been caught messing up with their tracking of the suspect - it all adds up.)