Neely: It's not race, it's class
The Jordan Neely case continues to grab headlines around the country — mainly driven by the media’s insatiable desire to racialize everything. But this time, something feels different.
Sure, we quickly got the usual bleats from the usual suspects: AOC called Neely’s death a “murder”; New York State Senator Julia Salazar — think “AOC lite” — called it a “lynching.” Al Sharpton, NYC Council Leader Adrienne Adams, The New York Times, a handful of over-indulged protestors on subway tracks… all defaulted to the narrative they’ve become so accustomed to bullying us with.
The result — as we’ve covered in this space previously — was the liquefaction of Mayor Eric Adams’ spine, and a rush-to-judgment-arrest by the NYPD before a grand jury was convened (which almost certainly occurred on Adams’ orders).
Naturally, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, whose efficacy and leadership in that storied office reminds one of the average Russian General, went along with the fast arrest. Now suddenly he’s trying to sound like a prosecutor and not Dr. Phil.
But then things got… complicated. A closer look at the famous video reveals that one of the men helping Daniel Penny restrain Neely is a man of color. A woman on the train stated that she was “praying” for Penny, and that she immediately went to the Fifth Precinct to give a statement in support. Then a black woman on that subway car stepped forward to call Daniel Penny “a hero” in the press. All three are potential testifiers.
This is not how the script was supposed to run. Shouldn’t we be burning tires and looting stores by now? Is there an “occupy” going on somewhere that I missed?
Nowhere is this shift more vivid than in the comments to the original articles by The Times. In a near-sexual fever, Times writers began to churn out article after article sanitizing Neely’s very troubled life, and (naturally) demonizing Penny. These articles have a Mad-Libs quality; the buzz-terms are always the same (“white supremacist,” “fear of the ‘other’”, etc). Usually, the “reader comments” to this stuff — if you can bring yourself to read them — will run the gamut of “I agree” to “Wow, do I agree!”
Not this time.
I don’t ever recall seeing such push-back to Times op-eds. Clearly, even some — in fact, many — Times readers ride the subway. And they’ve all been in situations where they were praying for a Daniel Penny to show up.
And it’s not just in the Times’ comments. As a current Manhattanite, I can tell you that the word on the street is: don’t indict him. While the people in the bars, restaurants, in online forums — all of whom would likely characterize themselves as lefties — recognize that Neely’s death is a tragedy, they generally don’t want Daniel Penny jailed for it.
So what gives?
It’s simple: None of the people publicly calling for Daniel Penny’s head ride the subways. For instance, AOC — who likes to affect a “Jenny-from-the-block” persona but who actually grew up in East Cupcake upstate somewhere — is rarely even in her district, never mind on the subway. Comptroller Brad Lander — who called Penny a “vigilante” on Twitter — has a city-funded driver.
This is the Uber Class — the folks who can afford to car service everywhere, even daily to work (if they don’t have a chauffeur).
The rest of us are the Subway Class — condemned to hurtle around town in a metal tube that’s a rolling psych ward.
It’s like H.G. Wells’ dystopian novel, The Time Machine. It’s the Above-Grounders versus the Under-Grounders, the enlightened Eloi versus the shambling Moorlocks.
(Comptroller Brad Lander holding off subway dwellers emerging at Broadway and 42nd.)
It was, of course, the Uber Class that created the defund movement, and so the vacuum Daniel Penny felt compelled to fill. Has it somehow escaped the notice of these Uberites that Jordan Neely had in fact been recently sentenced to an “incarceration alternative”? And that its effectiveness was laughable?
So as the Uber Progressives continue to tell us how overblown the crime issue is — while New York becomes ever-more pockmarked by empty storefronts — remember the old saying: “It’s easy to be a holy man on a mountain.”
And in your daily Uber, apparently.
Idaho, Revisited
Your narrator spent a good amount of time reporting on the Idaho murders earlier this year (I can confirm for you — that state has cold winters. Wow). As has been widely reported, Brian Kohberger entered a “Not Guilty” plea today by standing silent before the judge (which had an air of defiance, didn’t it?).
So what happens now?
In a word: Combat.
The Defense —which recently added a death penalty expert to their attorney team — will be looking to knock out some of the key evidence against Kohberger, using constitutional or procedural grounds. First up is apparently the DNA sample sent to a commercial genetics company (think “23 And Me,” etc.) that investigators used early in the case.
This type of DNA has failed legal — and scientific — tests before. Furthermore, the companies in this field are often loathe to cooperate with law enforcement — it undermines their business model.
But here’s the thing: the investigative team knew that. So they purposely didn’t rely on it.
If you look closely at the original arrest complaint, the investigators did not include the commercial genetic database results. In sum, the team used retrieved video and digital investigation (phone-tracking, etc) to hone in on Kohberger.
The DNA they ultimately did use to match to Kohberger was retrieved from his garbage in Pennsylvania. And it was matched to the DNA on the knife sheath using the Idaho State lab.
So here’s the question: Can the Defense make out a case that the commercial database tactic was somehow unconstitutional?
And if so: Can they then make a showing that the rest of the case flowed from that? Thereby creating a “fruit of the poisonous tree” debacle for the Prosecution?
My answer: No.
As I said many times on the air regarding this case: the investigators had prosecutors closely assisting and advising them all along (a sadly underused strategy in detective work). The team was out ahead of this. This challenge will fail.
And similarly: So will most — if not all — of the other challenges to the evidence.
The trial is set for October. I’m seeing no appetite for a plea deal, on either side.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. If convicted, Brian Kohberger likely faces a firing squad.
Shameless Plug Department
Your humble narrator has a piece up on foxnews.com that has been making the rounds on social media, and in fact even got Martha McCallum to laugh on-air during our recent segment together (which made my day, I can tell you).
If you missed “The Tale of Harry the Red and His Princess Bride” last time out, check it out here.
(And read the Comments — many are quite funny. “Duchess Smollett,” indeed!)
