I currently believe that reasonable doubt exists. And since “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard for a guilty sentence, I would currently vote Not Guilty if I were sitting on the jury.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is meant to be a very large barrier. It’s not “maybe”. It’s not “probably”. It’s not even “I personally think he did it, but I understand how people could think otherwise.” It’s “a reasonable person would have zero doubt that he did it.” Beyond a reasonable person’s ability to doubt. And since that doubt still exists, (due to the bungled investigation, laughably inept police work, him not looking like the shooter in the security footage, etc) he would be not guilty in my eyes. Because a reasonable person would be able to find ways to doubt his guilt.

He was facing the possibility of life in prison. I could see pleading guilty in spite of his innocence because of that (and there are many cases of people who pled guilty to avoid the possibility of a maximum sentence and were later exonerated).

As for the specific admission of stalking, shooting, and causing the death of Brian Thompson, I don’t extend the benefit of the doubt to the government anymore, to the point that the description of his flat affect makes me wonder if he was tortured. He was kept in solitary confinement for a long time (which I guess is technically already torture, but I’m sure the US government doesn’t legally consider its “correct” application such)- a couple of missed visits outside in a row can really fuck with a person's psyche.

I don’t think it’s likely that they specifically and actively tortured him to force this exact confession out of him, but I do think he has likely been both intentionally and negligently psychologically harmed during his imprisonment, beyond what is unavoidable when holding someone against their will.

I try to think of it from the perspective of a Luigi who didn’t do it. He had gone a little nuts in the months before the arrest and had been living rough for a while after having cut contact with most of his family and friends and quitting his job. Suddenly he’s arrested because of his eyebrows, and they plant a bunch of convenient for prosecutors but nonsensical for the specifics of this case evidence. They probably rough him up during the arrest, then he’s reunited with his family who have enough money from a gofundme to hire great attorneys, and he’s getting fan mail and nude Polaroids for some reason. He’s still not exactly mentally stable and then he’s kept in solitary confinement for months, interspersed with incredibly high profile court appearances and a huge demand from the general public for his commentary on all of this.

Would it astound me if someone who had been through all that reacted by confessing to the crime? No, honestly. I could see that person reacting in all sorts of ways.

Maybe during sentencing or if there is ever a state trial, enough evidence will be put forth to tip it for me, or we’ll get to see enough of him speaking and reacting to things to get a better handle on what his mental state is, but until then, I’ve got evidence based reasons to doubt that he did it (the chain of custody on the backpack, the eyebrows not being convincing for me, and the utter pointlessness of getting a ghost gun and not disposing of it), so it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were on a jury deciding this, I would obviously receive more evidence, but I do need that before I can say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.