It’s not as though Mangione’s lawyers have a lot of options. There’s little doubt that he murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood, shooting him in the back. What can they plead? That Thompson deserved it, which is the basic argument of the left and of Mangione’s fangirls (who seem to be themselves suffering from “emotional disturbance,” but they’re not on trial)? Certainly not.

“Extreme emotional disturbance” wouldn’t get Mangione off entirely, nor would it get him a stint in a mental hospital. It would, however, reduce his sentence, if the jury found it was present:

Luigi Mangione plans to assert a psychiatric defense at his state murder trial, claiming he was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance when he gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a judge said Wednesday. It wouldn’t absolve him of the Dec. 4, 2024, killing, but could free him from prison sooner.

If a jury accepts that defense, the panel would convict Mangione of manslaughter and he would face up to 25 years in prison. Alternatively, the jury could reject the extreme emotional disturbance defense and convict him of murder, which carries a potential life sentence. That defense isn’t available in his federal case.

His state case is due to begin September 8 and his federal case October 13. Each state has its own murder laws, and Mangione is being tried in New York. “Extreme emotional distress” as a defense is not common in states in the US; this site claims it’s only available in NY (how convenient for Mangione), although I’ve read it also exists in Arkansas. Basically, it’s somewhat similar to the old “heat of passion” defense although it’s not exactly the same, and it reduces the crime to manslaughter.

In New York:

To establish the defense of Extreme Emotional Disturbance, the defense must prove:

(1) The defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing, and

(2) There was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as they believed them to be.

Unlike the insanity defense, EED does not require proof of mental illness, though psychiatric evidence is often used to support the claim. It is a partial defense focused on emotional volatility and human response to extreme stress, provocation, or trauma.

I sincerely hope it requires more than the statement “I’m a hothead, and I got upset and killed him.” It is probably requirement #2, the “reasonable explanation or excuse” part, that raises the bar and makes it more difficult to prove than that. Traditionally, I believe it functions when there is major and personal trauma that directly involves the murderer and the victim, not some sort of generalized trauma like being upset about a divorce and then killing some random person on the street. Nor does it involve something like losing your job – which is upsetting but which most people seem to survive without killing anyone – and murdering your boss.

Here are examples of how it works in New York:

The courts look for cases where the defendent:

– Was provoked by a triggering event that created overwhelming emotional stress
– Reacted immediately or after a short period during which the emotional disturbance remained active
– Had no reasonable opportunity to regain self-control before committing the act
– Was under the influence of emotional trauma that a reasonable person in their situation might have experienced similarly

Examples include:

– A person killing a spouse after discovering infidelity in a shocking and unexpected way
– A parent reacting violently after prolonged abuse or threats against their child
– A victim of long-term domestic violence lashing out in a moment of uncontrollable fear or despair

You can see what I mean about the direct connection between the killer and victim.

I suppose everything depends on the jury composition, and it’s possible – because this is New York – that the jury will at least be deadlocked or hung. But I don’t think all the jurors would accept a defense like this for Mangione, even in New York. The crime was heinous, there was a relative long period of planning, and the previous connection between Mangione and Thompson was basically nil as far as we know.

What on earth will the defense claim to be the cause of his emotional disturbance? I’ve read Mangione had some back pain and a spinal fusion surgery – that apparently was successful, and that his insurance company was not United Healthcare. So, what would the distress have been? That he was upset by a news story about the health insurance business? It seems preposterous to me, but perhaps his lawyers will get creative. I don’t think they’ll win, but you never know with juries and New York is a funny place.

The federal charges don’t allow that sort of defense, and so I think Mangione will be going to prison for a long long time one way or the other.

The post Luigi Mangione intends to plead “extreme emotional disturbance” in his defense appeared first on The New Neo.

The sex-trafficking ring in Rotherham may well be the worst in the West ever, or so one would hope. British officials have now identified at least three hundred suspects in a crime syndicate that raped and trafficked underage British girls for years, while local police ignored signs and clues for years…

It was already known that the perps were almost exclusively what the Brits call “Asian men” – in this case, Pakistani – and the victims were underage white girls, mostly poor and often neglected. So, what’s new?

It’s the stunning scope of the abuse and the extent to which the system of police and social services, tasked with helping the girls, ignored or often exacerbated the problem. The initial abuse was really only the first step for many of these girls and families.

The numbers are staggering. A summary:

Here are eight essential quotes from @RupertLowe10’s Rape Gang Inquiry.

1) This was a nationwide, not merely local, phenomenon.

“…that this was never a series of isolated local failures. It was a coordinated, nationwide pattern of organised child sexual exploitation that repeated in town after town, city after city, from the far north to the south coast.”

2) The scale was enormous, more than anyone dared to think.

“The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma. The true number is probably higher.”

3) As has been reported, the vast majority of perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims.

“In court records and official inquiries, around 87% of those convicted in these group-based child sexual exploitation (‘CSE’) cases bore distinctively Muslim names… Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam with the Oxford Islamic Congregation, believes the true proportion of gang members who are Muslims to be around 95%.”

4) Vulnerable girls were targeted using a consistent method.

“Organised networks of perpetrators built coordinated operations that transported victims between locations, supplied them with drugs and alcohol, recorded abuse for distribution and blackmail, and passed girls between multiple adult men.”

5) The police, and other institutions, knew what was happening and ignored it.

“Police forces ignored repeated reports, criminalised victims instead of perpetrators, destroyed evidence, and allowed known rapists to walk free on bail. Social care services undermined protective parents, placed children in trafficking hubs inside children’s homes, closed cases despite clear indicators of exploitation, and retaliated against whistleblowers. The NHS recorded genital injuries, multiple sexually transmitted infections in children as young as 13, pregnancies caused by rape, and suicide attempts, yet discharged victims back to their abusers without safeguarding referrals or trauma care. Schools observed older men collecting girls at the gates, heard disclosures of rape on school premises, and responded by excluding victims rather than protecting them.”

6) Those in these institutions did so because they were afraid of being called ‘racist’.

“Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.”

7) Parts of the foster and orphan care system became exploitation hotspots.

“Children’s homes became trafficking hubs where staff failed to stop older men collecting girls at night. Local authorities often returned children to unsafe homes and placements despite repeated disclosures of grooming… Social care across England systematically enabled organised grooming and the rape of children. Children’s services, local authorities, foster carers, children’s homes, and independent units repeatedly returned vulnerable children to known risk.”

8) Multiple offenders explicitly linked their treatment of these girls with their own religious and cultural beliefs, and the girls’ white ethnicity.

“They were taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were “white trash” or “kuffar” who merited punishment.”

I haven’t read the actual report; it’s over 200 pages long. It can be found here, if you care to wade through it. I assume that summary hit the most salient points, but I hope to read the report soon or at least skim it heavily. In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts and questions (the full report may answer some of the questions, however):

(1) Was this multi-culti virtue-signaling run amok, or some even greater evil on the part of British authorities?

(2) Note that there were whistleblowers, so not everyone was a cowardly enabler. But there were “retaliations” against whistleblowers, and this almost certainly had what in the law biz is called a “chilling effect” on further whistleblowing.

(3) What finally changed and resulted in the news coming out?

(4) And what of Starmer? This tweet mentions that Starmer himself let off 13,000 of the perps.

(5) Will there be any further consequences now, or will the whole thing be a case of, “we’ve aired it and it’s time to move on”?

Some quotes from the report can be found at Ace’s. Here are some:

The behaviour is deeply tied to tribal structures prevalent in parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Somalia:

– Family honour is primarily vested in the conduct, modesty, and virginity of girls and women. Strict codes require obedience, covering, and restricted interaction with outsiders. Breaches within the community trigger severe sanctions, including honour killings or collective retaliation by male clan members.

– When the target is a non-Muslim girl — particularly White British girls perceived as unguarded, dressed in Western styles and lacking male protectors — the risk calculation shifts. No retaliation is expected from the girl’s family or community, so some young men feel emboldened to treat her as property and then approach, assault, groom, share among the group, and sell her services.

– This proprietorial view of women escalates into organised networks that traffic girls across regions. Impunity fuels the cycle: initial assaults without consequences create a perception of Britain as a place where such behaviour carries no risk, turning vulnerable girls into commodified products.

I would say it wasn’t just a perception of Britain as a place where such behavior is risk-free. The perception was correct for a long long time.

More:

While the foundational system is tribal rather than purely religious, Islamic elements provide ideological justification, communal shielding, and strategic expansion. Perpetrators sometimes hide actions from families, mosques, and imams because the behaviour brings disgrace to the community. Yet remorse toward British victims is limited because non-Muslim girls are not viewed as fully human individuals deserving protection, but as unprotected outsiders available for abuse without moral consequence. This fosters widespread silence within affected communities.

The Inquiry evidence points to a fundamental clash of worlds. Across the West, our historic respect for the individual has, thanks to mass immigration, been overpowered by the more primitive attitudes that prevail elsewhere, according to which group membership matters first and foremost. The elite obsession with diversity has invited the latter to take advantage of the former. Scare-words like ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’ have been deployed to exploit the good will of Western host societies, paralysing investigation and enforcement.

Again, there’s nothing really new there – except for the scale of the horror. And horror it was.

There’s also the class issue; these girls were not from rich families. They were disposable, according to the politicians, sacrifices to the need not only to virtue-signal as a non-bigot, but to get the votes of the growing population of “Asian” voters.

I see no indication that the present government in Britain will change anything, and I’m not even sure that a replacement on the right would do much. Democrats here are fully capable of similar enabling, although I don’t think the problem here is anything like it was across the pond. Here it seems to take the form of winking at massive fraud and theft of government largesse, and the red cities and states are not immune.

What a terrible mess.

NOTE: In 2008 I wrote two posts on cultural and moral relativism. I believe this one is particularly apt. An excerpt:

But somehow the idea that we cannot, and should not, judge other cultures at all has taken hold in recent years; not just in anthropology but in the West as a whole, and especially in our school system. The proper name for this is moral relativism, as opposed to cultural relativism. This phenomenon is a combination of a decline in our own previous attitude of celebration of Western civilization—and an emphasis instead on its sins, its mea culpas—combined with a romantic Rousseauvian attitude toward the other, of which the “noble savage” is a familiar subset.

One of the reasons that judgment of other cultures has been nearly abandoned is that one of our highest values has become that of tolerance. But tolerance was only meant to mean that we not look down on others merely because of the fact that they are different from us. It does not mean we need to tolerate their destructiveness, their hatred, or their intolerance—the latter of which should always define the limits of “tolerance,” or tolerance would become a value that would lead inevitably to its own contradiction and destruction.

The post In the UK, there has been widespread child sacrifice on the altar of diversity and tolerance appeared first on The New Neo.

This first clip is two minutes long:

This second clip is about three and a half minutes long

That’s from 1969, and a lot has happened since then, as you might imagine. Here’s a short summary:

Since 1945, immigration to the United Kingdom, controlled by British immigration law and to an extent by British nationality law, has been significant, in particular from the former territories of the British Empire and the member states of the EU and EFTA. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, migration from countries outside the European Economic Area has dominated immigration to the UK. The British Nationality Act 1948 granted residency rights to all colonial subjects, approximately 800 million, enabling mass post-war immigration. The Commonwealth Immigrants Acts (1962, 1968) and Immigration Act 1971 rescinded these rights by introducing work vouchers and ancestral requirements that favoured those with parent or grandparent to have been born in the UK. The British Nationality Act 1981 abolished the 1948 citizenship status.

Since the United Kingdom acceded to the European Communities in the 1970s and the creation of the European Union in the early 1990s, people have migrated from member states of the European Union, exercising one of the European Union’s Four Freedoms. Migration to and from Central and Eastern Europe increased since 2004, following the accession of eight Central and Eastern European states to the European Union. Following the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 at 11 pm GMT, this freedom of movement ceased. Citizens of EEA+CH member states no longer had an automatic right to move to or reside permanently in the UK without a visa. A smaller number have come as illegal immigrants, many of which have claimed asylum. …

The UK Government can also grant settlement to foreign nationals, which confers on them indefinite leave to remain in the UK, without granting them British citizenship. Grants of settlement are made on the basis of various factors, including employment, family formation and reunification, and asylum …

Long-term net migration is estimated to have reached a record high of 944,000 in the year ending March 2023, with immigration at 1,469,000 and emigration at 525,000. According to the Office for National Statistics’ provisional estimate, released November 2025, long-term net migration in the year ending June 2025 was +204,000 … Total immigration was 898,000: non-EEA+CH nationals accounted for 75% of total immigration (670,000), British nationals comprised 16% (143,000), and EEA+CH nationals constituted 9% (85,000). The top three nationalities from non-EU+ countries immigrating on work-related visas were Indian, Pakistani, and Nigerian.

It’s complicated, to say the least.

The post Enoch Powell again: on how third-world immigration to Britain got going appeared first on The New Neo.

One of these people is Karmelo Anthony’s grandmother, who spoke to the pro-Anthony demonstrators after the trial:

? WATCH: Karmelo Anthony’s grandmother riles up the crowd by REPEATEDLY screaming “RACIST, BIASED, PREJUDICED” as she left the courthouse

“They sent a MESSAGE that a white person can hit a black boy and get away with it! They can do whatever the F—K they want!”

This entire… pic.twitter.com/p80ibpTnTF

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 10, 2026

Karmelo Anthony’s grandmother riles up the crowd by REPEATEDLY screaming “RACIST, BIASED, PREJUDICED” as she left the courthouse

“They sent a MESSAGE that a white person can hit a black boy and get away with it! They can do whatever the F—K they want!”

So Austin Metcalf “got away with it”? Being murdered wasn’t punishment enough to satisfy this lady? What else would she have liked to see happen to Austin Metcalf and his family? Perhaps she’d prefer something of this sort?:

Twisted Karmelo Anthony supporters are bombarding the family of slain high school football player Austin Metcalf
with sickening death threats, including a disgusting message saying Austin’s twin brother, Hunter, should have also been killed.

It’s almost irrelevant to point out that Austin Metcalf is not reported by witnesses to have hit Karmelo Anthony, because even if he had done that it wouldn’t have given Anthony license to kill him. It used to be that just about everyone understood that. But for some, the rule is now, “if you lay a hand on me, even if I’ve been asked to leave a school tent because it’s not my school, and then I refuse to do so and insult and curse at you, I get to kill you.” Or maybe just, “if you lay a hand on me I get to kill you.”

At least this was Anthony’s grandmother saying it; she is expected to be understandably upset at the fact that he’s going to prison. But people deal with upset in any number of ways, including apologizing to the real victims – the Metcalf family and anyone who witnessed the killing – and looking inward rather than deflecting blame outward. That this woman chose the latter route is telling.

But then there are people who are supposed to be leaders. For example, there’s Jasmine Crockett, who made a series of extraordinary statements on the case, including this one:

Rep. Crockett: "Black women live in agony every day that I promise the Metcalfs had never lived through" pic.twitter.com/GVielzMf51

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 10, 2026

Pure intersectionality. Black women rank very high on the all-important victimhood ladder, according to Jasmine Crockett.

Also see this from Crockett about the size of the knife wielded by Anthony, although that’s irrelevant, and about motive and the self-defense justification. This woman is a lawyer and knows better, but her need to whip up racial anger is strong:

Some of Karmelo’s crazed supporters are now reportedly randomly punching white people. Do the white people get to stab them in the heart? Assuredly not.

ADDENDUM:

This Legal Insurrection post features a number of comments by black people who agree that Karmelo Anthony is clearly guilty of murder and needs to pay the price. I think their position represents that of the majority of black people, despite the attention-getting behavior of those who consider Anthony a victim.

The post The reaction to the Karmelo Anthony verdict: he’s the victim! appeared first on The New Neo.

The man who was viciously stabbed on a Belfast street by a man from Sudan has lost an eye. He’s fortunate he didn’t lose two – at least, that hasn’t happened yet:

The victim of the stabbing remains in serious condition and the court has heard he lost his left eye and has severe damage to his right eye in the attack as well as deep cuts to his head and face, and long lacerations on his back.

The attack was only stopped by some brave onlookers, including this man:

Among the heroes was Maitiu Mág Tighearnán, known as Matt, who stumbled upon the scene after returning home from a night out.

Grabbing a wooden hurley stick – used in the Irish sport of hurling – the young dad charged towards the knifeman.

Police later said the actions of courageous members of the public and responding officers had “undoubtedly” saved the victim’s life.

I originally thought, from the name, that Maitiu might be from the Pacific Islands or some other foreign place. But then I realized that no, the spelling of the name is a Gaelic thing. Here’s some information:

Speaking to the Daily Mail, Mr Mág Tighearnán said he had just returned from hurling practice with his son, when he noticed a car in the area reverse as “if to get away from something”.

He then exited his vehicle with his friend, named as Andre, when the pair noticed the attacker stabbing the man.

Mr Mág Tighearnán said “instinct took over” as he confronted the man.

“Andre was a few seconds behind and he came running in and tried to subdue the attacker with an ankle-hold so he could free the victim,” he added.

“I hit this guy again, hard, but it didn’t seem to phase him. He did stumble back, though and dropped the knife. I think another man who’d been watching came in and kicked the knife away.”

He also told the newspaper the victim appeared to “scream” but couldn’t due to stab wounds to his neck.

“I’m glad we intervened when we did. It was pure chance that we’d gone that route to the petrol station,” he continued.

“People have called us heroes but to be honest I’d like to think most people would’ve got stuck in and helped if they could. I just hope the victim pulls through and manages to recover as best he can.”

Heroes nearly always claim they’re nothing special. But they’re very special.

As for the perpetrator, he had nothing to say for himself when he appeared in court (via videolink):

Hadi Alodid has appeared before the city’s magistrates’ court on Wednesday morning.

The 30-year-old, with an address at Duncairn Avenue in Belfast, is charged with the attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvy, threatening to kill an NHS radiographer on the same day and with the possession of a knife.

He appeared in court via videolink. He refused legal representation and made no reply to charges which were put to him through an Arabic interpreter.

He was refused bail. The threats against the NHS worker have not been further explained as far as I can tell. My guess is that this happened first, and was the beginning of the perp’s frenzy that culminated in the stabbing. Why was Alodid interacting with an NHS radiographer? Was he being worked up for some problem?

I’ve read a few other things from sources I don’t think are necessarily trustworthy, although I don’t know. For example, some are saying that Ogilvie had helped Alodid move into a flat just a few days earlier. Others say that Ogilvie is developmentally disabled. Each of these things may or may not be true.

The event sparked riots, and of course the riots were condemned by people like Starmer. It really does seem that he’s more upset about the riots than about the attack, although he did condemn the attack. But Starmer will not sympathize with the rage of people who feel their country has been invaded by a large number of newcomers who are culturally incompatible and many of whom are not assimilating. Nor will he sympathize with the rage they feel towards people like Starmer himself who have encouraged the huge number of third-world newcomers.

Starmer said:

“The scenes in Belfast last night were shocking and completely unacceptable.

“There is no justification for the violence and disorder that we saw threatening our communities, nor for those who encouraged it, online or elsewhere.

“It is clear that people were targeted last night because of their background and I will not tolerate it. Those responsible will feel the full force of the law.”

Oh, that’ll calm them down.

NOTE: On the rescuer’s name, Google AI has this to say:

Yes, the name Maitiu (often spelled Maitiú) is distinctively Irish. It is the traditional Gaelic/Irish form of the English name Matthew, which traces its ultimate origins to Hebrew.The second part of the name, Mág, is a traditional Gaelic prefix (a variant of Mac) meaning “son of.” It is typically combined with another Gaelic word, such as Tighearnán (meaning “lord” or “master”), to form a full Irish surname (e.g., Mág Tighearnán, Anglicized as McKiernan)

So we might call him Matthew McKiernan.

The post The Belfast stabber and his victim appeared first on The New Neo.

Anthony must pay the price. But what will the price be? It really depends; he was 17 when he killed Metcalf and perhaps the jury will be lenient for that reason. …

I have a hunch, though, that … Anthony will get less than the maximum sentence.

The maximum was life or 99 years. The crime was a heinous one. And the carrying of the knife to a school track meet, plus witnesses saying Anthony kept his hand in his bag (apparently at the ready with the knife) during basically a verbal spat, indicates the murder was not a sudden “heat of the moment” thing. Premeditation can involve a short time; it doesn’t have to be hours or days. Also, a knife plunged that deeply into the chest would almost certainly be known to be a mortal blow, so it would be very difficult for Anthony to successfully claim that he didn’t mean to kill Metcalf.

Therefore there was a very good argument that Anthony should have gotten life. The death penalty is not allowed if a perpetrator is under 18 and without other special circumstances, and since Anthony was 17 at the time of the murder and the requisite special circumstances were not present, life in prison was the maximum allowed.

Why did Anthony not get a life sentence? The jury didn’t deliberate long, and I don’t think they explained their sentencing decision; at least, I haven’t found an explanation. But I think – as I wrote earlier – it was his youth. Also his baby face. He will have a long time in prison to think about what he did, especially if he ends up serving most of it. But even if he only serves half of it (the minimum, because he would be eligible for parole then), when he gets out he would be around 34 because he’s 19 now. That will have to do.

Meanwhile, the scene in the courtroom during the penalty phase was absolutely heart-rending. I’m not primarily referring to the fact that Anthony himself was weeping during the sentencing phase. Was he weeping mostly for himself? Probably, but I’m not a mind-reader and perhaps the intense sorrow voiced by Metcalf’s family may have moved Anthony. It’s nice to think so, anyway:

Anthony sat with his head on the table moments before the sentence was delivered and appeared to be sobbing, NBC DFW reported.

He stood when asked, but still kept his head angled down, NBC reported.

Metcalf’s mother, Meghan, delivered a powerful statement calling her slain son their family’s beloved peacemaker.

“There was a part of him you can never take from me, the strength I still get from him every day, because I know what it was like to be loved by him. My son was murdered. He didn’t just die. He was taken from us. Just as he was starting to live,” Meghan said.

“You may have just been given a sentence of 35 years, you should feel lucky because I’ve been sentenced to a life without my son.”

Meghan’s sister imparted a poignant question that has haunted Metcalf’s loved ones since his murder.

“One question will always be with me. Why? Why could you not have just left?” she asked.

Anthony kept his head down the whole time – even when Metcalf’s father, Jeff, ordered him to look up, according to the report.

Jeff smacked the podium while reading his statement, telling Anthony that he doesn’t “belong in this community” and detailing how Metcalf’s murder “destroyed the person I used to be.”

Anthony finally raised his head when Metcalf’s twin brother, Hunter, asked him to look him in the eye.

“You took a son, a brother, a friend, and my best friend, from this world. You took someone from me who was supposed to be an uncle, godfather to my kids. Now I want everything taken from you,” Hunter choked.

Hearbreaking.

Meanwhile, Anthony’s family did not behave well:

After the hearing, Anthony’s mother, Kala, and his brother blasted the killer’s conviction and sentence as “racist and biased” to cheering supporters who chanted “free Karmelo.”

Were these the sort of values Anthony was taught by those who should have been guiding him? Apparently. And yet, of course, they are suffering too.

Here’s some background information about the Anthony family:

By all appearances, the Anthonys look like a typical family. Karmelo has several siblings and the family’s social media showed a comfortable life like vacations, a lavish home and expensive cars, per Distractify. Three years before the incident, they had relocated to North Texas. “Three years ago, my family moved to North Texas, searching for a better life,” Kayla said in a press interview after Karmelo’s arrest, she described their family as loving and said they had provided their children with opportunities to succeed.

The emotional toll of the trial on the family was visible in court. On Monday, Anthony’s parents were summoned into the courtroom for a private visit with their son during a two-hour delay. His mother came out of the courtroom alone and sobbing and had to be escorted to the restroom by security. His father followed shortly after, also in tears. It was not clear what was said during the private meeting, Daily Mail reported.

Did they ever teach Karmelo a sense of personal responsibility? Or was everything bad that happened to him due to racism? I simply don’t know enough to come to any conclusions. But the behavior of his mother and brother now, inflaming crowd passions and calling the verdict racist, may give us a hint.

[NOTE: This Daily Mail article contains more of the victim’s family members’ statements. Very sad.]

The post Karmelo Anthony has been sentenced to 35 years appeared first on The New Neo.

But many of Anthony’s “supporters” do, because of racism, the perennial accusation:

Karmelo Anthony sobbed Tuesday as he was swiftly convicted of murder in the fatal stabbing of fellow high-school jock Austin Metcalf at a track meet — and his furious supporters raged, “This whole thing’s been racist!”

The jury in Collin County deliberated about three hours before finding Anthony, 19, guilty of first-degree murder in the death of the 17-year-old and must now decide whether to put him away for life — prompting the killer’s weeping mom to later take the witness stand and beg for mercy for her son, according to a report by NBC DFW.

“He’s my oldest. He’ll always be my baby. I love him very much,” Anthony’s mom Kala Hayes sobbed to jurors before they headed into further deliberations to decide his sentence.

As she spoke, Anthony also cried.

“I know my son, and he’s very sorry for what he did,” Hayes told the jury.

“Sorry” doesn’t cut it. That doesn’t mean this isn’t a tragedy all around. I don’t know enough about Anthony’s family to blame them for his behavior, and it’s certainly not the case that the family is always to blame. But in the end, he is guilty of stabbing another young man in the heart for no good reason on earth.

Anthony must pay the price. But what will the price be? It really depends; he was 17 when he killed Metcalf and perhaps the jury will be lenient for that reason. I doubt his lawyer’s summation helped him much, though. Then again, his lawyer’s task was tough, because this was pretty much an open and shut case in the legal sense:

“Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent,” Anthony’s lawyer, Mike Howard, said during closing arguments at the Collin County trial — as Anthony looked on intently from the defense table.

“He had the right to ask him to leave, but he didn’t have any legal right to use force,” Howard said of Metcalf, according to a report by the Daily Mail. …

Howard said Anthony “had an absolute right to defend himself.”

What is Howard talking about? After Anthony was asked to leave 15 times and refused to do so, while insulting and cursing at the group and threatening them, Metcalf gave him a moderate push. That is legally irrelevant and does not justify murder. And this was no accidental act of Anthony’s, either – no case in which someone caused a chain of events that led to death. This was a knife plunged deep and with great force into Metcalf’s heart.

Or, as the prosecutor said:

You don’t get to meet a shove with a stab, especially if you provoke the shove …

No, you don’t. That is quite literally overkill. But Anthony’s lawyers really had no other way to approach his defense, since his act was basically indefensible.

The prosecution added this:

The prosecutor told the jury they should consider Anthony’s mindset rather than his motive.

“It’s mindset, mindset,” Wirskye said. “He took a knife to a track meet. He of course felt empowered that he was going to come out on top of any encounter.”

I have a hunch, though, that if it’s possible Anthony will get less than the maximum sentence. No matter what, he will be a hero to some people, but I don’t think their numbers will reach the level of the Luigi-lovers.

ADDENDUM: The jury deliberated for three more hours, and gave Anthony a 35-year sentence for the crime.

The post Karmelo Anthony is found guilty of murder appeared first on The New Neo.

The trial is not about whether Anthony stabbed him; it’s about why. And in that respect the Anthony defense is very much like the argument Vickrum Digwa tried to mount: that the stabbing was self-defense. Anthony’s definition of self-defense, much like that of Digwa, is the perception of danger even when no real danger was present or even arguably present. In other words, it rests on feelings.

That’s not the way the law of self-defense goes, even if you buy that that’s what Anthony felt in his heart. Mere perception is not enough; there must be some valid and objective reason for that perception. Karmelo’s defense lawyers are presenting this approach, and tomorrow will be closing arguments:

Prosecutors say the stabbing was an unjustified attack stemming from an argument over whether Anthony could be under the tent of Metcalf’s team.

Anthony’s attorneys have argued that he acted in self-defense and reacted in fear during a “split-second” moment after Metcalf made physical contact.

The jury heard from defense witnesses on Monday, including one of Anthony’s former teammates who was at the track meet when the fatal confrontation unfolded.

One of Anthony’s teammates, testifying Monday, said Anthony was “distraught” after the stabbing.

“I was hearing him say, ‘I told him not to touch me,’” the witness said.

So what?

From what I’ve read, evidence in this trial paints a picture of Anthony as the aggressor. He had come into the other team’s tent and refused to leave although asked many times, and then this happened:

Prosecutors previously called more than 20 witnesses, including students who were at the meet and a medical examiner who testified that Metcalf was stabbed through the heart. …

One teen recalled Anthony telling Austin, “Touch me and find out,” and described both teenagers as angry, though he characterized Anthony as the one provoking the situation. He said Austin eventually pushed Anthony, after which Anthony pulled a knife from his backpack and stabbed Austin in the chest.

It seems to me that, both in the Digwa case and this case, the person doing the stabbing was highly reactive and ready to kill at the slightest provocation, which included anything perceived as “dissing” him. That’s not self-defense in the legal sense. That’s a murderer in the making.

Anthony has his champions among the public, and jury selection and race has been an issue. If Anthony is sentenced, I bet that will be one set of grounds for his appeal:

The trial, which is expected to last about two weeks, has drawn significant political scrutiny, with racially charged demonstrations calling for Anthony to ‘walk free.’

A panel of 12 jurors and six alternates was selected after roughly 600 prospective jurors were questioned during a selection process that began Monday. No black jurors were seated on the final jury.

Why no black jurors? Here’s some information on that:

Dewey had to remind panelists that nobody would get “in trouble” for revealing their feelings about the hot-button case, which the Anthony family, who are black, claimed is a product of “white supremacy.”

With that sort of attitude on the family’s part, it’s not hard to see why Anthony might have been so primed to strike.

As for the potential jurors:

“He looks like a child,” several said in questioning relayed by WFAA, when asked if they could consider a life sentence for the teen, who has been charged with first-degree murder.

“I don’t think I can make a decision about somebody so young. One mistake, one argument, one conflict, you can’t say he’s a bad person,” one potential juror told Assistant District Attorney Dewey Mitchell. …

Mitchell asked panelists how they feel about this statement: “I don’t feel comfortable finding an African American male guilty of murder.”

“I don’t know if I feel right putting a brother in jail,” one candidate stated, according to WFAA.

Perhaps they’re also afraid of being doxxed if they’re on a jury that convicts Anthony.

The post The Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas appeared first on The New Neo.

In other words, the process gives us the appearance of fraud. That is built into the system, which allows vote-counting of mail-in ballots a week past election day as long as they are postmarked on that day (and “postmarked” is rumored to be interpreted as including a handwritten note), and which features mail-in ballots to everyone on the rolls plus liberal ballot-harvesting.

For example:

California has some of the most permissive — if not the most permissive — vote-by-mail laws in the country. Every active registered voter is automatically mailed a ballot before each statewide election. Because the state has refused to allow the Department of Justice to review its voter rolls, there’s no way to know how many registrations belong to deceased individuals, voters who have moved, duplicate records, or were actually fraudulent registrations to begin with. …

Additionally, California accepts ballots that arrive as late as one week after Election Day. Although the law requires those ballots to be postmarked on or before Election Day, claims circulating on social media suggest that even a handwritten date may be enough to meet that standard, raising further questions about the state’s ballot-counting process. For obvious reasons, this is impossible to confirm.

That time frame is inherently untrustworthy and should never be allowed, unless perhaps for absentee ballots from military personnel. Why would anyone implement a system like that, with so few ways to check on it? Hard to believe it’s for any reason other than to make it more possible to cheat if necessary, once the counters know how many ballots they have to create in order to make up the difference. And with the universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, it’s even more suspect.

So either there was an amazing bona fide surge for the most far-left major candidate in the mayoral race, Raman – hard to believe – or there was cheating here. And the argument made by the left, that late-arriving mail-in ballots in California always go for Democrats, is unconvincing. Do such ballots go disproportionately for Democrats compared to the earlier mail-in ballots? More importantly, do they go for the non-frontrunner – the person in third place? And if so, does the phenomenon occur even when there is no threat from a Republican or a candidate the Democrat establishment doesn’t want – in other words, when there is no reason to manufacture votes? In the case of this LA mayoral primary, there wasn’t so much a late surge for Democrats as a late surge for Raman in particular, the third-place candidate prior to that, and the one who is most to the left.

Because only the top two vote-getters in the California primary advance to the general, if the counters of votes wanted to push Pratt out of the running, they had two choices to eliminate him. The first choice would be to help the frontrunner and incumbent Bass reach 50% and win outright; if a candidate gets over 50% in the primary that person is the outright winner and there’s no further voting [CORRECTION: This appears to be incorrect information, and therefore this option was not available]. But Bass was about 13 or 14 points away from 50% on election night, so that was probably a bridge too far. Too many votes to manufacture. But Raman and Pratt were only five or six points apart on election night. Much easier to make up that difference and set up an obligatory Democrat/Democrat twosome. And that’s what has happened.

Bass had been consistently beating Raman in the ballots arriving by Election Day. And then suddenly Raman beats Bass in the later ballots. See this:

The big tell about Los Angeles Mayor right now is not that Nithya Raman has gained massively on Spencer Pratt. It’s that she’s gained on Karen Bass *while Bass’ share actually declined* in two full days, Thursday PM to Saturday PM.

Bass and the Normie Dem Adam Miller both dropped slightly in share while Raman essentially took all the net gains.

Thursday Left, this morning Right. Raman gained 3.1 points on Bass. Conventional wisdom was that late voters would’ve consolidated around the incumbent, not bolt for the upstart extremist.

More here:

A candidate who was getting around 20% of the vote is suddenly getting 40% of the vote, and those votes are coming at the expense of Spencer Pratt.

Not her Democrat opponent, whose vote percentage has remained steady.

Not a “Democrat” surge; a Raman surge.

I’m not sure where this guy gets his information, but it’s certainly interesting:

As @BoredElonMusk & the data show, Raman’s late mail in ballot surge was fueled in large part by ballots from Skid Row.

Tens of thousands of homeless whose ballots are sent to central addresses (not the sidewalk) & can be filled out/returned by someone else.

There’s also this:

Many have been asking me describe the potential signature verification loophole for Los Angeles mail in ballots.

It says: “If a voter is unable to sign, the voter can make a mark witnessed by one person.”

Here, the person drew a happy face & “witnessed” it with a scribble. That scribble isn’t validated as being a real person. No name, nothing.

While a happy face may draw scrutiny, a plain line would not.

This could hypothetically enable mass harvesting where the voter never fills out, signs or even sees their own ballot.

We should be told how many ballots show up without the voter’s signature.

A hundred, two hundred years ago, a lot of people couldn’t even sign their name. Today? No excuse for this except in extremely rare circumstances. Combined with ballot harvesting, it’s an obvious travesty. And yet how can the fraud be proven in such a situation? It can only be inferred, but there’s no way to check on who made that mark.

More numbers here:

Mail-ins arriving before Election Day:
– Bass: 38.1%
– Pratt: 27.9%
– Raman: 20%

Mail-ins arriving after Election Day:
– Raman: 37% (+17% surge)
– Bass: 34.9% (-3% drop)
– Pratt: 19% (-9% drop)

In addition:

Add to all this a fact that many have not considered: you don’t even need to manufacture ballots after election day. All you need to know is the approximate results beforehand (Raman comes in third), and fill out the harvested ballots from the homeless, apartment buildings, and fake voters, ensuring that the correct result is overturned after the election is held. You have over a week to get them in, so you can even wait until the polls close and initial results come in and still get that vote counted “legally.” …

Most of the “cheating” can be done legally, save for the actual filling out of the ballots, which is practically impossible to detect. Simply have the harvested ballots ready to fill out when the initial results come in on election night, vote the ballots, and send them in. No magic USB drives necessary. No video trail. No paper trail. No examination of the ballots. …

As far as I can find, which is not admittedly definitive, there is no case where a third-place candidate far back vaults into first place in ballot counts days after the initial results come in. It beggars belief, violates common sense, and depends on the belief that late-breaking voters surged to a candidate everybody knew was rightfully dead and buried. That pattern is never observed in the wild. …

But it is the pattern necessary to kick Pratt off the ballot, giving Karen Bass a clear and easy path to victory over a candidate few people like, and nobody is enthusiastic about, and with the charisma of a rock.

I don’t see any remedy possible for this particular election. One very slight comfort (very slight) is that, if Pratt had been allowed to get on the ballot against Bass in the general, I think it’s highly likely he would have lost the election. I suppose it’s theoretically possible he could have won if he ran an amazing campaign in the next few months. But we haven’t been allowed to find out; it was too dangerous to let us see what he was saying, or to have another debate where he might show Bass up to be a fool. And the Democrats couldn’t even risk the remote possibility of a Pratt win.

However, for the future, there’s this possibility:

The case before the Supreme Court is Watson v. Republican National Committee. The question is direct: When Congress established a national Election Day for federal elections, did it mean ballots must be received by Election Day — or merely mailed by Election Day?

During oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel Alito warned that confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined when the apparent result on election night is later flipped by a large batch of late-arriving ballots.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise pressed attorneys on whether history supports requiring ballots to be received by Election Day. Their questioning reflected broad skepticism from the court’s conservative majority.

Sacramento should be paying attention.

Most Americans understand Election Day to mean the deadline. California’s system tells them otherwise.

When vote totals keep changing for days after the polls close, suspicion naturally grows — because the process looks like it has no real endpoint.

I would say it has no objective endpoint other than 30 days after Election Day. It does have a goal, though – which is to select and then elect the preferred candidates of the Democrat powers-that-be.

The article mentions that, even if SCOTUS decides that Election Day is the final acceptable day for mail-ins, that rule would only apply to federal elections. State and local elections could still use the old method – which means the primary rules for governor and mayor would not change, as far as I can tell.

Once states go this way, it’s very hard to reverse the trend. And that is part of the design.

ADDENDUM:

A similar reversal has been starting to happen in the governor’s race; see this. Will Hilton make it into the general? I submit that it looks better for him than it did for Pratt. I think it’s more difficult to commit enough fraud to matter on the level of an entire state election unless the percentages are very close to begin with. On the state level, there are too many red areas which are not amenable to Democrat vote-counting control, plus the sheer number of faked votes needed is higher. So maybe Hilton will hang in there – although if he doesn’t, it would not surprise me either. It would be third-place Steyer who would have to outperform both Becarra and Hilton as time goes on.

The post On the LA vote-counting process that is giving LA two leftist Democrats to choose from for mayor appeared first on The New Neo.

It turns out that Vickrum Digwa is far more vicious and depraved than we were led to believe, and that Britons have not been allowed to see much of the evidence. Neither was the jury, because the judge deemed the evidence too disturbing to share with them. Think about that and let it sink in: Digwa was so depraved in his behavior that the judge withheld evidence of his crime from the people who needed to know because it would enrage them.

If that withholding of evidence from the jury is true – and I’m not 100% sure it is – I’m not sure on what legal grounds it would happen; “it would be too upsetting” hardly seems sufficient. I’ve been puzzled and frustrated from the start by all the gaps in the record and especially in the reporting of the trial itself.

There is some reference to it in the judge’s sentencing remarks, or at least a reference to something similar:

Your brother, Gurpreet, arrived on the scene very shortly after your attack had finished. You then filmed Henry desperately trying to get away from you, somehow scaling a fence, onto a communal bin, before landing on a car in front of the property next door. Bloodstains show that he had got one, more or all his injuries before then.

You then showed a callous disregard for his wellbeing, knowing you had stabbed him to the chest. You continued to make films of Henry suffering, ignoring much of his desperation at having been stabbed. You told him that had not happened, no doubt to convince others who were nearby. Your attitude did not change even though Henry was clearly going downhill very fast. Your brother did much the same, although he may just have been accepting that which you had told him, rather than lying himself. …

You kept Henry’s phone with the incriminating recording of you on it. You had no intention of handing it over. It was found on you after you had been arrested and taken into police custody.

There was a conversation between the two brothers in Punjabi as they were being driven to the station. At least the police had the presence of mind to record that conversation (or maybe the act of recording was automatic?). It was in that conversation that Vickrum Digwa confessed to his brother that he was guilty, and this confession was discovered when the conversation was translated.

The following allegedly involves video taken by a home security camera, but I can’t find the Daily Mail article referred to:

The Daily Mail has now published details from sentencing that almost no one has reported.

As Henry Nowak — bleeding from five stab wounds — tried to climb a commercial rubbish bin and over a fence to escape, Vickrum Digwa filmed him.

And taunted him.

“You’re not going to get… pic.twitter.com/G4HvnLvo62

— Justice For Henry Nowak (@HenryNowakSol_) June 4, 2026

A home security camera then captured what may be the most chilling exchange in this entire case.

Henry: “I am dying.”

Digwa: “You’re not dying bro.”

Ten minutes later, Henry said: “You stabbed me.”

Digwa replied: “No, I didn’t.”

In the ten minutes that followed the stabbing, Vickrum Digwa did not call an ambulance. He filmed Henry for a full five minutes instead.

That clip was deemed too disturbing to be played in court.

Which clip was deemed too disturbing – the one Digwa filmed? The one from the home security camera? Or both? I don’t think either has been released to the public (although we’ve seen the police videocam with certain aspects blurred). I continue to find it surprising that the jury didn’t see the video made by Digwa on Nowak’s cellphone (perhaps it came under some self-incrimination exclusionary rule?) or in particular the home security video (some privacy rule?). The judge almost certainly saw all the videos, but I’ve been unable to find anything that clarifies further.

A question that remains for me is how much time passed in its entirety, from the stabbing itself to Henry’s death. This would seem important in determining if he could have been saved. More time seems to have passed than we originally were led to believe. There’s also this:

It is apparently true that if the stab wound had pierced an artery, [Nowak’s] chances of survival were low, especially by the time they arrived. But it did not. It pierced a vein, and the resulting leak would have been far slower, because such wounds clot far more quickly, slowing the bleeding. It is likely that the act of dragging Nowak and then handcuffing as they did reopened and stretched the puncture, and that led to his quickly dying.

A doctor testified that Nowak could not have been saved no matter what, but I won’t believe that until I hear more corroborating details. There will be an inquest to look into it further:

The full inquest into the death of Henry Nowak will open with a jury at Winchester Coroner’s Court on 20 September 2027.

More than a year away? What on earth?

From Ace, who thinks an hour passed between the stabbing and the death, although I’m not sure on what that is based:

People point out there was a trauma center five minutes away — but they allowed the “racist” to bleed out on the ground for an hour while chatting with the racist foreign family of killers.

This is a case of a murder that grows in meaning and force rather than fading. I suppose it will fade – no doubt authorities are hoping for that. But it taps into so many themes of recent years: “anti-racism” resulting in racism against the non-favored groups, the focus on hate speech as an actionable offense (especially in Europe and Canada) if the hate speech is against those favored groups, the phenomenon of violent crime by immigrants from foreign countries (although Sikhs are generally quite law-abiding), and DEI prejudice on the part of police. It also highlights the ubiquity of recording devices, without which I doubt Digwa would have been convicted at all.

The post More about the terrible death of Henry Nowak appeared first on The New Neo.