The Murder of Brian Thompson: The Case of Luigi Mangione: Guilty Plea

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_00] If you want to take your business to the next level, you need Upwork. Their talented freelancers will have you winning the talent game and scaling up fast.

[00:00:08] [SPEAKER_01] Upwork is a one-stop platform for finding, hiring, and paying expert talent. The people you need to do the jobs that need to get done right. Upwork boasts talent across 125 categories. Marketing, business operations, data and analytics, software development, creative writing, and much more.

[00:00:27] [SPEAKER_00] Upwork lets you grow your team by pairing you with excellent, experienced freelancers. Hire one fast. Get the expertise you need now for the project that will make your business triumph.

[00:00:39] [SPEAKER_01] Upwork is all about delegation. Because you don't have to do everything all by yourself, you can bring in trusted, capable freelancers for a single project or again and again.

[00:00:50] [SPEAKER_00] Upwork works. I know. I was an Upwork freelancer for years writing all kinds of romance novels anonymously. I got paid fast and I was dedicated to my work in helping small publishing concerns grow and scale.

[00:01:03] [SPEAKER_01] Upwork gives you an easy win for your business. With their Business Plus, you'll even access the top 1% of talent on Upwork.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_00] Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's U-P-W-O-R-K dot com, Upwork dot com. Kevin and I both wear glasses. We need them to see. But we're definitely guilty of hanging on to them for way longer than we should. Like even after they're a bit battered and scratched. So we put it off as long as possible.

[00:01:37] [SPEAKER_00] We've both been wearing the ones we're currently wearing for probably two or three years. I don't even really remember. It'd be hundreds of dollars to replace them.

[00:01:45] [SPEAKER_01] Thank goodness there's Zenni Optical. Zenni is an online eyewear shop with lots of stylish prescription glasses, sunglasses and customizable lens options. All starting at under $30.

[00:01:58] [SPEAKER_00] I adore a pair of oversized, square-shaped sunglasses. So naturally, I ordered the Zenni Sausalito sunglasses. I've been suffering through this summer so far without prescription sunglasses. I'm giving myself a headache either from my blurry vision or from the bright lights. Now I can avoid the headaches altogether and I feel these are really cute sunglasses too. It's a classic style, perfect for summer. I can wear them to the beach or on a long summer walk with Kevin and Nick and Nora, our dogs.

[00:02:25] [SPEAKER_00] I would have expected to pay well over $100, even more for these glasses. And they were like $77. That is an amazing, unbelievably low price for prescription sunglasses, let me tell you. And I got those without sacrificing on the quality. That scratched-up pair has done its job. Upgrade today with Zenni. Go to zenni.com slash podcast and use code podcast15 for 15% off your first order, plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65.

[00:02:54] [SPEAKER_00] The styles sell out, so don't sit on it. That's Z-E-N-N-I dot com slash podcast, promo code podcast15. I'm Anya, and today on The Murder Sheet we're going to be talking about breaking news in the murder of Brian Thompson, a.k.a. the guilty plea of Luigi Mangione. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder and violence.

[00:03:20] [SPEAKER_00] All right, today is Friday, August 14th, 2026. And Luigi Mangione, the sort of highly publicized defendant in the murder of Brian Thompson case, has pled guilty in federal court. Today we're going to be talking about what does that mean? What exactly did he plead guilty to? What did he say? What's going to happen next? And how might this affect his case in the state of New York trial?

[00:03:50] [SPEAKER_00] So let's get into it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:03:56] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're Murder Sheet.

[00:04:08] [SPEAKER_00] And this is The Murder of Brian Thompson, the case of Luigi Mangione. Guilty plea.

[00:04:15] [SPEAKER_00] I guess to start out with Kevin, I'm curious, this is kind of something we heard about yesterday

[00:05:05] [SPEAKER_00] from, I believe, a New York Times report that indicated that this is how today was going to go down, although obviously nothing's over until it's over. However, I'm curious, having followed this case as you have, is this a development that you are surprised by, that you're not surprised by, or neutral?

[00:05:24] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not especially surprised by it. Maybe I'm naive. I tend to believe that in many cases people will ultimately act in a rational way. And if you're Luigi Mangione and you are facing this trial where, let's be honest, the evidence against this man was overwhelming.

[00:05:46] [SPEAKER_00] It was really bad.

[00:05:48] [SPEAKER_01] He would have been convicted. And if you're in a situation where you are facing pretty certain conviction, and you know you can get the potential of getting a somewhat lesser sentence if you plead guilty, and if you also realize that pleading guilty at this time could also potentially, in theory, help you with your state case, I think it's the rational thing to do.

[00:06:17] [SPEAKER_01] So I don't find it especially shocking. What about you?

[00:06:19] [SPEAKER_00] I guess I always think, you know, people are going to fight to the end, especially if they've been seemingly kind of poised to do that. And certainly in this case, there are cultural and social and political overtones to it where you have what I would call a fandom around this guy. And I'm not saying everybody who might be sympathetic with him is a fan,

[00:06:49] [SPEAKER_00] but I mean, I for, you know, as long as I've been covering this, have kind of checked in on different online spaces, and you have people giddy over his appearance or what he's wearing in court that day. And how can we support him and we love him? And to me, like sometimes keeping that going can almost like, I wonder if sometimes that motivates defendants. Obviously not in this case. I agree with you.

[00:07:18] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I think it probably does motivate them in some cases. But in another way, what you've just said illustrates for me the stark contrast between, for lack of a better word, the true crime industrial complex and the actual reality of federal court and the actual reality of going through all of this. Yes, if you're a part of true crime and you're a fan, you want the trial,

[00:07:45] [SPEAKER_01] you want them to go on fighting, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But in reality, if you're facing a really tough case, it just makes more sense not to.

[00:07:54] [SPEAKER_00] And I think it's also an important thing. Like we see this all the time where like the quote unquote Reddit lawyers, the quote unquote law tubers are giving their audience not what is accurate, but what they think people want to hear, which is, oh, the case against him is so weak. He's going to moonwalk out of there, you know, after getting acquitted on all. And it's like, man, this case to me for a while has seemed pretty damning.

[00:08:20] [SPEAKER_00] And like, you know, my view was always just that health care is such a unifyingly like horrible issue in America that so many people, whether you're white, black, Hispanic, whether you're a man or a woman, whether you're rich or poor or, you know, I mean, pretty much everyone except like the billionaire class, whether you are Republican, Democrat, in the middle, many people have had a horrible time with health insurance. You know, we've talked about some of our own experiences.

[00:08:50] [SPEAKER_00] It's it's a unifying issue. And that doesn't mean that people think it's OK to murder somebody, though. That doesn't mean that people think like, yes, the reaction to this is let's gun down a guy in the street in cold blood. But it does mean that, like, I was feeling like maybe best he can do is hang the jury a couple of times, you know, like which is a win, you know, if you're facing this damning of a case. So I thought maybe. But honestly, I don't I don't know.

[00:09:16] [SPEAKER_00] I don't know if a New York jury would have really gone for that, to be honest, like especially when faced with this level of evidence. It's not ambiguous. But I just felt like people were being sold a bill to goods. And then sometimes I think people were kind of almost joking about it of like, oh, he was innocent. He was hanging out with me on a date, you know. So there was some like level of facetiousness to some of that support of like, I mean, what I took from comments like that is like, yeah, he probably did it. But I don't want him to

[00:09:42] [SPEAKER_00] be guilty because I think he's cute or I hate I hate health insurance people.

[00:09:47] [SPEAKER_01] So I want I think the undertone of a lot of comments I saw online were not that I believe this man is innocent, but I believe he had a really, really good reason.

[00:09:59] [SPEAKER_00] Which, you know.

[00:10:01] [SPEAKER_01] The law does recognize some reasons that could justify taking a life like self-defense, for example. But it doesn't say, oh, if you have a really bad back, you can kill somebody, at least not in my awareness of the law. I'm getting ahead of myself.

[00:10:16] [SPEAKER_00] I think if we kind of adopt people talking about like social murder, if we adopt this, then you should be able to go kill a doctor that refuses treatment of you because their their hospital doesn't take your insurance. Like like this can go into some pretty dark places beyond. You know, I think any sort of CEO wealthy executive is not going to be a sympathetic victim to a lot of people. I disagree with that take. I think human life is human life and

[00:10:41] [SPEAKER_00] you shouldn't kill anybody. But, you know, I think if we take this kind of like, oh, well, it's OK because it's justified because of this, this and this in class warfare. You know, I mean, I listen, I'm not to get political on anybody, but like, do I believe that, you know, the people at the very top of this of our society, the wealthiest people are crushing everybody else? Yes. Do I think a way to effectively fight that is like kill one guy?

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_00] No. I also think health insurance is pretty complicated. I think health insurers, I mean, I've had dealings with them that have made me be like, this is an evil company. But I also feel like the way you combat that is simply not just wholesale slaughter and mayhem.

[00:11:27] [SPEAKER_01] Well, I mean, let's be honest. He committed this murder in 2024, close to two years ago. Anya, do you think since that murder, the health care system has dramatically changed and we're now in a new golden age where none of us have to worry about health insurance? No. No. So it accomplished nothing. All he did was he took the life of a guy who was an executive

[00:11:52] [SPEAKER_01] and he also essentially threw his own life away. He destroyed his own life. He destroyed his own

[00:11:58] [SPEAKER_00] life with a very bad choice. And, you know, Brian Thompson, again, like I've talked on this show. I've had my own dealings with UnitedHealthcare specifically. So I understand anger toward the company and the people who make money, make the substantial paychecks from it. He was, at the end of the day, a human being and a father. You know, I mean, to me, his family certainly,

[00:12:22] [SPEAKER_00] you know, is, I imagine, suffering. Again, again, like I don't, I just don't think that's a way of dealing with anything. You know, I mean, like people can use the same rhetoric to then justify murdering like abortion doctors. I mean, like, you know, and like that, I would hope that that would also be controversial. Like, how about we just don't, my take is just like, let's just not murder anybody, you know? I mean, let's just, let's try to, if we feel a system's broken, which I feel like it

[00:12:50] [SPEAKER_00] is, let's try to try to work towards change. And, you know, in a nonviolent way, I tend to think that that history bears out that that tends to be more resilient than just randomly killing one guy. Why? It's not like that led to any sort of like a revolution, right? I mean, people weren't taking, I mean. What happened today, Anya? All right. Well, today, Luigi Mangione pled guilty, but I

[00:13:20] [SPEAKER_00] actually want to go back in time to the murder itself, just so we can kind of review the basic facts and get a little caught up because it's been a while since we covered this. So Brian Thompson was the CEO of United Healthcare and he was murdered on December 4th, 2024 in Midtown Manhattan early in the

[00:13:40] [SPEAKER_00] morning. He was shot to death in the street at about 645. He was on West 54th Street and, you know, was going to a company like investor conference that was supposed to be happening there at 8 a.m. and Mangione sort of laid in wait for him a bit, I think, according to security camera video. And

[00:14:05] [SPEAKER_00] he's caught on security camera sort of shooting him, kind of ambushing him while his back is turned and, you know, shoots him. They find 9mm spent shell casings at the scene and a live round of 9mm ammunition and the words deny delay depose are written on them. So kind of they got the sense

[00:14:27] [SPEAKER_00] early on that this might be someone who's angry about insurance. And that was true. So this sets off a search for the killer and they are able to, you know, I mean, this all kind of breaks open because a McDonald's worker in Altoona, Pennsylvania happens to basically like notice this guy thinks

[00:14:53] [SPEAKER_00] it's the killer, calls the police. The police are like, oh, whatever. And then the police show up and they're like, I think it is the killer. And yeah, they kind of they arrest him and they start looking at the evidence against him. They recover evidence from his backpack that he was, you know, hanging on to. I want to talk about what exactly he was charged with, because I think that's an important distinction. So weirdly enough, or maybe not so weirdly, he was charged with federal and state

[00:15:23] [SPEAKER_00] charges. So, you know, they were both going. I mean, like that does happen sometimes, but it certainly created some interesting kind of tension in this case. So in the federal case, I think he was charged with interstate stalking resulting in death and stalking through use of interstate facilities resulting in death. Those are the two. So there's the stalking component and there is the

[00:15:50] [SPEAKER_00] interstate commerce stalking component, but they both talk about resulting in death. He had previously had charges around firearms and there was also a death penalty on the table for the federal government that was dropped. So that's no longer in play. And, you know, so that's what he's facing federally. Statewise, I believe second degree murder is the big one and a number of counts of criminal possession

[00:16:18] [SPEAKER_00] of a weapon, I believe six in total, and then possession of a forged driver's license. So New York, you know, the death penalty, I don't believe is on the table. And that's where we are. Luigi Mangione's team has argued that he shouldn't be tried in both because double jeopardy. Do you want to talk about what double jeopardy is?

[00:16:43] [SPEAKER_01] Double jeopardy means basically that you can't face trial for the same charge multiple times.

[00:16:51] [SPEAKER_00] Why is that important? Why is it important that we enforce double jeopardy?

[00:16:56] [SPEAKER_01] Uh, it's really a crucial protection of our rights against the state. Otherwise, they could keep trying us repeatedly or if somebody, they could keep trying us, we get acquitted. Oh, let's just try him again. That's one way of double jeopardy because you're facing the same thing more than once. Another thing is, oh, we really don't like this guy. Let's just keep inventing new charges related to something he did. So we can just keep on trying him over and over again and really rack up, uh,

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_01] the potential punishment. So in this case, it's interesting because from the same set of facts, he's been charged with different things in different venues. So the prosecutors would say he's not facing literally the very same charges in state court as he's facing in federal court. So therefore, since they're not literally the same charges, I think it's in state court, it's murder in federal court. I believe it's what stalking ending in death. Since they're not

[00:17:55] [SPEAKER_01] literally the same charges, therefore double jeopardy doesn't get triggered. That's what the prosecutors will say. It's August, which means summer is cooling off and we are heading for fall. August is pretty much the Sunday of summer, right? As the seasons change, we'll be relying on our wonderful sponsor, Quince, to keep us feeling stylish and comfortable.

[00:18:14] [SPEAKER_00] Quince offers garments and products that feel so luxurious and well-made while also being high value, affordable essentials that will become your wardrobe go-tos. Ultra soft organic cotton and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters. We both have those and they're soft and perfect for fall. We can wear them to a pretrial hearing or out to dinner with friends. They also have premium stretch denim starting at just $50. That's something I'm looking into. I may get that next.

[00:18:39] [SPEAKER_01] This summer, we went to Columbus, Ohio for a huge book festival where we were featured authors and moderators and I wore my 100% European linen relaxed shirt in martini olive. I'm a guy that probably prizes comfort above all else in clothing, so I love Quince. The clothing just feels great to wear.

[00:18:57] [SPEAKER_00] Plus with Quince, you're getting high quality luxury goods for less. Their products are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. And these clothes last. They don't go out of style and they're quality

[00:19:09] [SPEAKER_01] made. Quince is not just about clothes either. Let them elevate your everyday with hotel quality bedding and bath essentials, kitchen staples, and premium furniture. Upgrade your everyday. Download

[00:19:21] [SPEAKER_00] the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash msheet. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash msheet.

[00:19:38] [SPEAKER_01] This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_00] We live in the golden age of scams. These fraudsters drain our money, our time, our energy, and our happiness. Every day we're bombarded by emails and texts from creeps trying to steal our money. And it's not just us. It's our grandparents and elderly parents and kids too. We've had it happen in our family when an elderly relative's email got hacked. It's really upsetting

[00:20:05] [SPEAKER_01] when it happens to you or people you care about. We're not alone either. Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. But here's a tool to help you fight back. Greenlight Family Shield. Keep your family from becoming a statistic. We use Greenlight and you should too. Set the Greenlight app up. It

[00:20:26] [SPEAKER_00] takes only minutes and it will start protecting your whole family from frauds and scams. Things that happen to one family member affect the whole family. So protect your kids, your grandparents, your elderly parents, everyone in your family. Greenlight Family Shield gives you up to a million

[00:20:41] [SPEAKER_01] dollars of identity theft coverage. They also protect you throughout the day through financial account monitoring, credit locking, and real-time alerts when fraud is detected. Take the fight to

[00:20:52] [SPEAKER_00] the scammers. Don't let them steal your time and money. 6.5 million family members already trust Greenlight to protect them. We love checking our Greenlight app. Checking it lets us know that

[00:21:02] [SPEAKER_01] we're safe. Scammers are not waiting, neither should you. Go to greenlight.com slash msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com slash msheet. Greenlight.com slash msheet. The defense will say no, no, no. If you're giving multiple charges based from the same set of facts, that's enough for double

[00:21:25] [SPEAKER_01] jeopardy. And so it would therefore be a violation of his double jeopardy rights to try him in the state for something he's already pled guilty to in the federal system. Okay, that makes sense. There's

[00:21:38] [SPEAKER_00] different views on this. I think, you know, one... That's also part of the strategy involved here

[00:21:44] [SPEAKER_01] because he's a... The state trial was about to begin. So this way, his team can go to the New York

[00:21:51] [SPEAKER_00] judge and say, he can't be prosecuted based on these same things. Like, he's already pled guilty here. What's going on? Right? Yes. There's an element of strategy in play here. And I can tell you,

[00:22:02] [SPEAKER_01] whatever decision the state judge ends up making, whether he says, yes, this is double jeopardy, we have to drop this, or no, this isn't double jeopardy, let the charges continue. No matter what

[00:22:17] [SPEAKER_00] decision he makes, there would be an appeal. Yeah, I imagine there would be. And, you know, I mean, there's going to be arguments made on both sides. Do you have a feeling at this point about

[00:22:28] [SPEAKER_01] who's correct legally? I don't. I think the arguments for double jeopardy are compelling. I don't know if they're strong enough to carry the day, but they're certainly compelling. What do you

[00:22:40] [SPEAKER_00] think? I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a simple country journalist. No, I mean, I don't know. I think I'll be curious to see what everyone comes up with. On some level, it feels like they're different enough charges, stalking resulting in death versus second degree murder. But at the same time, what I've, and we'll get to this, but it almost sounds like there might be some extra considerations under New York

[00:23:09] [SPEAKER_00] law that make it even more strict than perhaps even other states about what is included in double jeopardy. So he, like, this may apply here and be something that a New York judge has to consider. I remember being surprised, not surprised, but like a little surprised when the judge in the New York case ruled sort of that the, you know, cause there was this whole debate. I mean, I'm oversimplifying

[00:23:39] [SPEAKER_00] this, but oh, the Pennsylvania police officers didn't do something with a search that they didn't have to do in Pennsylvania, but they should have done in New York. And it was kind of like, what are we expecting these Pennsylvania cops to be like sitting around in the patrol cars reading New York law textbooks? But, but the judge was like, yeah, we have to hold it to the New York standard. And I understand that it's a New York case. I thought it was a little bit.

[00:24:02] [SPEAKER_01] New York has very strong protections for defendants. I think what you're referring to is that there is a provision of New York law, which says that you can't charge a person for two crimes that are from the same criminal transaction without triggering double jeopardy. We always talk about you stealing cereal boxes. So I guess one example would be, let's say you steal two boxes of cereal and you

[00:24:30] [SPEAKER_01] plead guilty for stealing box one. Let's say you steal them both together. You go in the store.

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_00] I'm not admitting anything.

[00:24:37] [SPEAKER_01] You go in the store, you steal two boxes of cereal and walk out. It's the same criminal transaction. So then the argument would be, well, if you are convicted and plead guilty of stealing one box of cereal, my understanding of New York law is it would be very difficult to then turn around and charge you for the second box of cereal as well.

[00:24:56] [SPEAKER_00] Hmm. Okay. I mean, and yeah, I mean, I, I, they, they do have strong protections of defendants and that may not be the case in every state, but it's something that would have to be contended with here. So I could see, I could see the New York case not going forward based on, based on that. But again, I'm sure the state, um, the state seems to be represented by very competent prosecutors.

[00:25:22] [SPEAKER_00] I think they, you know, I can certainly see them putting up a good fight on, on not having that be the case. But I think, you know, his defense team is also very competent. So I'm sure they'll have some good arguments. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out because it's, it's not necessarily one of those clear cut things where you definitely know how it's going to go down. But, um, you know, so what was actually said today? Well, unfortunately, like, you know,

[00:25:47] [SPEAKER_00] it's federal court. One thing that, you know, is kind of a, a nuance of federal court is that you don't really know cameras. I mean, like that's typically, they're not, they're not streaming it. You don't get to watch it on court TV. So unfortunately, I like to watch stuff myself and get a sense for it. And, uh, we can't unfortunately just drop everything and go to Manhattan sadly. So we have to rely on the reporting of some, you know, very good reporters

[00:26:14] [SPEAKER_00] who were there. The New York Times had like numerous reporters posted there updating their live blog. We cited, you know, we're citing from that heavily. We're also citing from CNN. But, you know, one thing about a trial happening in New York is that the United States of America is like has certain media markets that kind of are the heaviest hitters. And I would say New York is at the top of that list. New York has an extremely heavy media presence. National,

[00:26:42] [SPEAKER_00] much of the national media is, is headquartered there, or at least has a sizable presence there. And therefore they have the resources to just kind of pull out all the stops and cover a big case like this, um, in depth. And, you know, that's not always the case with everything. But in this case, you're getting a lot of great coverage. So this all came together very quickly. Again, we, we, we learned about it from a New York Times report yesterday. And my reaction was like, I wonder if

[00:27:08] [SPEAKER_00] he's actually going to go through with it, but it kind of sounds like he is. And today we actually got to hear. So he, he pled guilty to the federal charges. This is what he is quoted as having said in court. I'll read some quotes from Mangione and we can react to those. Um, he claimed that he, um, quote,

[00:27:30] [SPEAKER_00] um, well, I guess to start off with, he talked about how he almost emailed United Healthcare in advance of this, um, in some kind of almost like social engineering ruse, it sounds like, um, where he was posing as an investor, I guess, to complain about, I don't know, something. I mean, like it,

[00:27:56] [SPEAKER_00] it sounded like he was, um, I mean, he kind of indicates like he emailed them with the intent to already do something and kill the guy. What did you think of that?

[00:28:07] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, that was an interesting possibility. I wasn't really clear on that, to be honest.

[00:28:11] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. I mean, like he, he talks about it in his thing and like, you're kind of getting different quotes from everybody because they're not, um, you know, he, uh, yeah, he, he basically was saying like, I'm, I'm a, I'm an investor. I manage assets. I want information about this. And he, he talked about how like he was responded to very quickly and given information about this

[00:28:35] [SPEAKER_00] December event that Mr. Thompson was, was going to. And he talked about how the motivation for this came because he had a lot of experience dealing with the pain of a back injury, which we know from knowing people who've gone through that and knowing people have gone through chronic pain, back injuries, I think are something that are extremely like life-changingly painful to deal

[00:29:01] [SPEAKER_00] with. And, um, he basically indicates like the, the, the tenor of the comments was like, they got back to me really quickly because they thought I had money and that, that continued to, to anger him. Um, so he talked about then how he, um, he emailed him with the intent to kill him, to, to shoot Brian Thompson quote on the morning of December 4th, 2024, I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan in his back quote. And as here's another quote, he quote, understood my actions.

[00:29:31] [SPEAKER_00] would place him in fear of death and bodily injury, end quote, end quote, knew what I was

[00:29:37] [SPEAKER_01] doing was illegal, end quote. So. So he's saying, not only did I do this, I understood it was wrong. Why is that an important distinction? If you're committing a crime and you're not in a mental state to understand that it is wrong, that raises the possibility of insanity or other things. He's basically saying, I was in my right mind when I did this. I knew what I was doing.

[00:30:03] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. So, and, and at one point they were kind of playing around with some kind of mental health defense. Remember that? So this is basically saying, that's not true. I knew what I was doing. This wasn't some kind of, you know, and it's very calculated because he's emailing them with the intent to kill the guy. He's emailing them to get information so he can go kill the guy. Um, you know, it's not, it's not something that's this kind of, you know, speaks to someone who's

[00:30:31] [SPEAKER_00] truly having a mental health crisis. There's some explanation of what he gives in this quote, quote, after years of enduring severe pain from a broken back and navigating the obstacles of the health system, I learned United Health will be holding an investor conference in New York City, end quote. One thing that's always interested me in this is that he, my understanding was he was not insured by United Healthcare. So like there's the idea that it's like, it's very much more of an

[00:30:59] [SPEAKER_00] attack on the system versus an attack on like, I have a specific grievance because this company has been treating me so poorly this whole time. Um, which also kind of speaks against a mental health thing. Cause you could almost understand like, I've been treated so poorly that I've basically like become so angry that I've like lost my mind versus like, I'm just going to go after the biggest

[00:31:24] [SPEAKER_00] healthcare insurer. Um, yeah. And I feel like he was kind of making a point. Um, he kind of is making a point though in this statement. And this is something we were interested in. Like if he's somebody who is in some ways motivated by this kind of like activism of like trying to change the world, even if in a violent or illegal way, like, would he want to have the

[00:31:53] [SPEAKER_00] opportunity to speak out and say, here's what I feel. And like, here's what we should be doing. And like, this doesn't really speak to a lot of that, but there is a little bit of a dig about like, oh, they, they got back to me really quickly when I thought I had money. And you know, I mean, there's a little bit of that, I guess. What do you think?

[00:32:09] [SPEAKER_01] There's a little bit of that. And certainly the complaints about the back, bad back.

[00:32:14] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. You know, I don't know. I guess I think it, I think it does get sympathy from a lot of people because a lot of people have had a really bad experience with insurance or have had loved ones who did go into medical debt or something. You know, I do think that that plays well with a lot of people, you know, I think a lot of people don't feel like you should kill anybody. But the

[00:32:36] [SPEAKER_00] underlying frustrations here, I think are very real in the United States. And, you know, it can kind of blur the lines in a case like this, in my view. What do you think?

[00:32:48] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, it definitely can blur the lines. And I get what you're saying about how a lot of people wondered what he would say and do in court, because that's really his last opportunity to have this huge national platform. Because after you plead guilty and are sentenced, you basically are forgotten. The culture moves on. The guy that killed those students in Idaho, we heard a lot less

[00:33:13] [SPEAKER_01] from him and about him after he pled guilty. That may have been one of the reasons why that person

[00:33:21] [SPEAKER_00] tried to withdraw his plea to get some attention. Yeah, I mean, I could see this guy continuing to get attention from prison, you know, because I think he does have that support that's already kind of been baked in. I think a lot of people don't view what he did as a bad thing. So I think they'll continue to support him. Like, I think he became more of a quote unquote hero to a lot of people because they support who he, you know, they support that he did this versus because they

[00:33:50] [SPEAKER_00] truly thought he was innocent. I think that was a bit of a LARP. I think that was a bit of a kind of wink wink. Yeah, he's not guilty. I think a lot of people just support this, which I think is troubling to me personally. But, you know, that's just me, just a normie person who doesn't think you should murder anybody. I don't know. I think a lot of people are appalled by it. But I think a lot

[00:34:14] [SPEAKER_00] people are kind of like, I don't know. I think there's something kind of cool about like kind of cool in the mainstream culture, even bleeding into the mainstream culture about like being flippant about murder if the target is the right person. I don't think that's a good thing. I think that's corrosive, but that's just me. You know, I think the other thing we should note is that,

[00:34:39] [SPEAKER_00] you know, one thing I was curious about was, is there some kind of plea deal going down here where the government is offering him something in exchange for, you know, this being over? And what the U.S., the United States attorney, who I believe is newly appointed, Jamie McDonald said to the press was that there's no plea agreement. We did not make a plea. Like this is he's just doing this. Why is that important?

[00:35:04] [SPEAKER_01] I guess it's important because oftentimes there's something in place. Oh, if you plead guilty, we're going to make things easier for you. And some people feel that's wrong. Some people don't like the idea of people getting breaks from the government to plead guilty. They feel like that's rewarding a wrongdoer. I do think, though, it is important to note that the U.S. sentencing

[00:35:32] [SPEAKER_01] guidelines for federal court typically do give sentencing consideration for people who accept guilt. So just the fact that he is doing a plea and accepting guilt gives him a certain measure of a potential break on the sentence.

[00:35:51] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. And the sentence is kind of something that is in contention now. So on when they had a press conference after this hearing where he pled guilty, the United States attorney's office was indicating we're going to be going for maximum of life. We want, you know, the statutory maximum life in prison when we do the sentencing on December 18th, 2026. So pretty tough talk. But apparently in and I have

[00:36:19] [SPEAKER_00] not seen this letter. It's not on PACER yet. But what it's been reported is that in the letter, they said that under the federal sentencing guidelines, he should get 24 or basically 292 to 365 months in prison, which my understanding would be 24 to 30 years and that he would have to serve 85 percent of whatever that sentence was under federal sentencing guidelines. So, you know,

[00:36:48] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, he's a young guy. Like 24 to 30 is not necessarily a life sentence. No, not at all. Why would there be a discrepancy between what they're saying in this press

[00:36:58] [SPEAKER_01] conference and this letter they submitted? That's really tough to really answer until we actually see the letter. So I'd be curious to see that letter and see the exact wording of it.

[00:37:09] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I'd be curious too. There's been a statement from United Health Group. They said, quote, Brian Thompson's life was cut short by an act of violence that devastated everyone who knew and loved him. We are grateful to law enforcement for bringing Brian's murderer to justice and our thoughts remain with Brian's family and loved ones during this difficult time. And then this is from the family, I believe, quote, while nothing will ease the pain of losing him, we are grateful that the federal justice system has held the person responsible for this heinous act accountable.

[00:37:38] [SPEAKER_00] Now we look to the court to ensure that the sentencing reflects the severity of this crime. I will say that it was reported in The New York Times that Brian Thompson's family was kind of walking by the media outside the courthouse while someone screamed America loves Luigi in the background. So yeah. There was a, yeah, there was a press conference afterwards with law enforcement and

[00:38:04] [SPEAKER_00] whatnot. I guess one thing that kind of remains troubling to me, because we've talked about this kind of facetiousness of some of the innocent support. And I think there have also been, to be fair to people, some serious discussions about how bad health insurance is or whatnot. You know, I mean, it's not, I don't want to, I don't want to cast aspersions on everybody who might have been like, well, maybe he did kind of have a mental health issue over this because it is crazy making.

[00:38:30] [SPEAKER_00] Like, I don't think everyone who necessarily was not immediately like he's definitely guilty is a conspiracy theorist. I don't think that at all. I think there were some intelligence discussions. I think there were some good things. I just think, you know, in true crime, the circus usually takes over. Yeah. And, and, and that stuff gets lost. And then, and then suddenly we're posting, you know, you know, fan cam videos of someone accused of murder,

[00:38:56] [SPEAKER_00] like things escalate quickly. Do you think for the people who were sincerely saying like there's a conspiracy, you know, that the NYPD, U.S. Attorney's Office, Altoona PD, you're all in on. Do you, I mean, what would you say to them in, in a sincere way of like, you know, like what to take away from

[00:39:16] [SPEAKER_01] this now that he's actually pled guilty? I think if there was a conspiracy in this case, then the people who would be most aware of that conspiracy would be the victim of the conspiracy, which would be Mr. Mangione and then presumably his lawyers. And if they knew there was a conspiracy and they knew he was innocent, I would have expected them to fight this to the end. And I would expect

[00:39:42] [SPEAKER_01] them to put out information about this alleged conspiracy to expose the alleged conspiracy. But when a man stands up in court and says, I did this, and he's not blaming a conspiracy for my seat, he's not blaming anything other than his bad back. The fact that he is accepting responsibility for me is really a nail in the coffin for the conspiracy theories.

[00:40:10] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I think it is. I would hope there would be some, if people kind of just see that and maybe it checks off some of their prior beliefs about the world and about what's good and what's bad, I can understand getting sucked into something where then you are getting into a conspiracy theory and conspiratorial thinking, especially if you're relying on commentary from people who are frankly just telling you what you want to hear. And it's an echo chamber. I just think like stuff like this,

[00:40:39] [SPEAKER_00] I would hope that it would prompt some reflection from some corners of true crime of like, hey, you know, it's better to go based on the evidence versus based on what I want it to be. You know, listen, and I'm the same way. I'm very passionate about my beliefs, okay? If you could give me a conspiracy where, you know, like all of my prior convictions and my politics and my views about the world are all like ticked off, I would love that, right? Because I'd be like, ah, yes,

[00:41:07] [SPEAKER_00] I'm very wise. I understand how the world works. Everything is exactly like I thought it was. I get that. Like, I would love that. I mean, I have to be careful with myself first and foremost to not go into that mode. And the way I do that is the guardrails I have are evidence. And when someone's caught with a gun and all of this other stuff and, you know, making bizarre statements, like, that's what I have to go with regardless of how I feel about health insurance, regardless about how

[00:41:34] [SPEAKER_00] I feel about, you know, our capitalist, end state capitalist society, whatever. Like, I got to throw that out the window because like, it's smaller than that. It's a case. It's a murder. Regardless of whatever else is going, regardless of the context, what does the murder case say? And I just think that's a way we can kind of all protect ourselves from illogical thinking and thinking that doesn't

[00:42:00] [SPEAKER_00] lead anywhere good. Because if you're just playing around in, you know, like an intellectual kiddie pool and, you know, like you're not really like challenging yourself. And I think a lot of people tend to do that in true crime that I see. And I don't think it needs to be that way. I think we could have serious conversations about serious problems in society without necessarily like trying to make a murder case something it's not.

[00:42:27] [SPEAKER_01] Absolutely.

[00:42:28] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:42:30] [SPEAKER_01] So I guess what's next is we're going to hear some sort of decision down the line about whether or not he will face state charges. That's also complicated, not just by the double jeopardy issue, but by the fact that he's potentially facing such a long sentence in this case, including potentially life imprisonment. And so there might be an argument, well, if he's facing this long, long sentence, is it a waste of resources to try him in a state case, even if it's not a double

[00:42:57] [SPEAKER_01] jeopardy provision? So there's a lot of different factors that will have to be weighed before a decision is made about whether or not to go on with the state case. So we can watch that. And then I think beyond that, the next step would be the sentencing, which I believe you mentioned is in December.

[00:43:13] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, December. I'll be very curious to see what happens with this. Just it raises some interesting legal arguments that I think both sides are going to have, you know, a lot of work, you know, a lot of stuff to say about. And it seems like from my viewpoint, which is not an expert viewpoint because I am not a lawyer, but just from some of the things you've said, from some of the commentary I've seen in other outlets, it seems like this was a savvy strategic move in the face

[00:43:40] [SPEAKER_00] of overwhelming guilt. Yes. And but at the same time, you have to give credit to the defense attorneys because it seems like this, although it may be confusing to people who thought he was just going to walk, is actually what defending your client and looking after his best interests looks like. Very well said. It's not the we're going to be you know, we got him off on all the charges and

[00:44:07] [SPEAKER_00] we're going to be carrying him out of the courtroom and having a party. It's like, OK, we have not a lot of great options here. Now, if we can do this and knock down the state charges and maybe somehow get on the like easier side of the sentencing, the nicer side of sentencing, maybe you might walk, you know, or like when you're 60, you know, like which is better than dying in prison. I've sometimes heard that federal prisons are nicer than state prisons, but I don't know enough

[00:44:37] [SPEAKER_00] about that to really say that that is also a factor here. And I'm sure some federal prisons are a nightmare, too. So I don't know if that went into it. But I think these I think this was a smart move. It sounds like because now they have now they have something that they can work with that might actually make his experience better versus, you know, kind of gambling on a jury just being so mad at insurance that they're going to let a guy walk despite the level of evidence against him,

[00:45:05] [SPEAKER_00] which like I don't I don't think would happen in New York.

[00:45:09] [SPEAKER_01] And we're definitely going to keep an eye on this.

[00:45:11] [SPEAKER_00] We certainly will. Well, thank you all so much for listening. And yeah, definitely let us know. I'd be curious if you want to join our Facebook discussion group, the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook, or if you want to reach out to us, I'd be curious about what your thoughts are on this. Do you think it was a good idea for the defense to do this? What are you curious about? What do you want to know more about as far as this case? And what are your thoughts on how it's going

[00:45:39] [SPEAKER_00] to go down in state court? All right. Well, thanks, everybody. Goodbye.

[00:45:42] [SPEAKER_01] Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:46:02] [SPEAKER_00] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:46:26] [SPEAKER_01] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:46:35] [SPEAKER_00] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.