I will preface this by stating that I am not American. I have not set foot on American soil since about 2008. I have no, zero, nil, inside information. I am merely speculating based on whatever info has been released to the public.

Some people are theorising that the NYPD used illegal electronic surveillance to track “Mark Rosario” to Altoona from New York. I will write this scenario as if they didn’t do that. (They might have, but this scenario works even if they didn’t).

It is the morning of December 9^(th) 2024. Altoona, Pennsylvania. “Mark Rosario” is walking alone on empty streets. It is raining heavily. He has been sleeping outdoors for a few days. But the rain has prompted him to book a room in a motel. He goes to the motel, but the room isn’t ready. There is a sofa in the motel foyer, but Mark doesn’t wait there. He leaves the motel. (Did the concierge kick him out in the rain? We don’t know. There’s no audio available).

Mark is cold and hungry and it is still raining. He goes to a fast food place, McDonald’s, and orders warm food. Mark is wearing a hat and a face mask so the eyes are the only thing people can see of his face.

Somebody calls the cops and says there is a guy in McDonald’s that looks like the Manhattan shooter.

A bunch of Altoona cops congregate in the McDonald’s. They already think Mark is the Manhattan shooter, basing this certainty on Mark’s bushy dark eyebrows. The Altoona PD is immediately in contact with New York PD, before they even take Mark out of the McDonald’s.

Altoona PD to NYPD: “We have a guy that looks like your shooter. He uses a fake ID, Mark Rosario”.

NYPD: “Great, we have the name of a Mark Rosario who stayed at a hostel here in Manhattan. What does he look like?”

Altoona PD: “5’10”, slim, bushy dark eyebrows”.

NYPD: “Great, that’s close enough”.

Altoona PD: “He doesn’t have a gun on him”.

NYPD: “That’s OK, we have the gun here so just hold him until we get there”.

Then someone in Altoona PD has a genius idea. The year before, an Altoona cop had been arrested and charged with making 3D guns. They have a bunch of his 3D guns in storage. Why not plant one of those guns on Mark?

Altoona’s Officer Wasser drives Mark’s backpack to the police station, and on the way there she turns off her body camera and stops for a bit. Another cop has brought a stand-in 3D gun to their rendezvous point, and they put the stand-in gun in Mark’s backpack. Officer Wasser turns her body camera on again, and “miraculously” finds a gun in Mark’s backpack when she gets to the station.

Mark Rosario is transported to the police station in a separate car from the backpack, so that he can’t see what is happening to his backpack.

Altoona PD books Mark at around 10am in the morning, and puts him in a holding cell at the police station. Altoona PD then contacts NYPD again.

Altoona PD: “We are in luck. This Mark Rosario guy is homeless. Nobody cares about him. His parents moved and they didn’t tell him where they moved. Not even his own parents care about him”.

NYPD: “Fantastic news. He will get an overworked public defender who will only have time to do the bare minimum for his defense. We are on our way”.

Meanwhile in New York, corrupt NYPD Officer Diaz is tasked with transporting the real 3D gun from New York to Altoona. It takes Officer Diaz a few hours to get to Altoona.

Once Officer Diaz is in Altoona they swap the two guns. The stand-in gun on Officer Wasser’s body camera is switched for the real gun from New York. In the afternoon/evening the backpack inventory is completed, with the real 3D gun from New York.

Poor Mark Rosario’s fate is sealed. Law enforcement are happy that they have someone arrested. Now the higher ups will stop yelling at them since the target of the shooting was a person who was important, unlike the other hundreds of murders in New York every year. Does it matter that Mark didn’t actually have the gun on him when he was arrested? No, since no one will care about homeless Mark.

I want to remind all of you that the prosecution will have to prove in court that this scenario did NOT happen. Can they do that?

1. Why was Mark Rosario transported in a different vehicle to his backpack?

2. What was Officer Wasser doing when her body camera was turned off during the backpack transport?

3. Why did NYPD send a corrupt cop to Altoona?

4. Why did the inventory take all day?

So much reasonable doubt throughout the entire day. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Can anyone else find more custody chain holes on this day? These are the ones I found. I'm sure I missed some.

Did anyone else notice this? No wonder they tried to keep it quiet when they put out the full video

Hello everyone, yesterday’s hearing was bittersweet. Of course, it is a partial victory, but it feels minimal when we think about the strongest evidence in the case. However, in light of this decision, I started wondering what weapons the defense may now have at its disposal. Sometimes even something that appears minor can have a major impact, especially considering that one of the constants of trials, and of this one in particular, is the element of surprise when you least expect it.

These are the thoughts I came to. I don’t know how much you may agree with me, but this is what came to mind.

1. Suppression of Digital Evidence

The judge suppressed the cellphone and the computer microchip found in the backpack. This may seem small but the prosecution cannot present to the jury the data extracted directly from these devices (GPS history, messages, chats, web searches). Yes, they have the notebook but they lost the electronic “smoking gun” needed to prove the defendant’s physical presence in New York through direct tracking. One might argue that they have footage of him. From what we know, that man was masked. The only time we are able to see a face is inside the hostel and we do not know whether the surveillance footage they have is actually capable of proving that the person outside the Hilton is the same. We do not know, in fact, whether the recordings cut off and then resume only when the masked man is seen again at Starbucks.

2. The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

Defense attorneys may seek suppression of any subsequent evidence that prosecutors obtained starting from the phone data or from the documents unlawfully seized at the McDonald’s.

3. Suppression of Custodial Statements

The prosecution cannot use L's responses attempting to justify possession of false documents or the use of a fake name, thereby reducing the appearance of “consciousness of guilt” arising from his own words.

4. Police Credibility

The team can aggressively cross-examine the police officers on the witness stand, highlighting how they violated the law by searching the backpack without a warrant and by allegedly inventing a false emergency. This is a great way to instill in jurors a “reasonable doubt” regarding the integrity and transparency of the entire investigation.

Last but not least.

5. Strong Grounds for Appeal

In the worst case scenario the defense may argue before the Court of Appeals that the original illegality of the McDonald’s search “tainted” the entire backpack, thereby rendering unlawful the later discovery of the gun and the diary as well. If the appellate court accepts this argument, the conviction could be overturned and the trial invalidated.

I still hope that the misconduct from Altoona PD can play a huge role during the trial.

Retweeted by court journalist Erik Uebelacker