Close Menu

MSNBC Takes Big Heat For Alarming Headline Regarding Laken Riley Killer

By Updated: CRIME

MSNBC’s online news division is facing intense backlash for publishing an article that appeared to humanize the illegal immigrant convicted of killing Georgia student Laken Riley, just one day after he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. According to the Daily Mail, outrage on social media is growing over the piece, which focused on Jose Ibarra, a 25-year-old Venezuelan gang member living in the U.S. illegally. The article, penned by MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos, ran under a headline suggesting Ibarra “never stood a chance” in court.

It detailed the overwhelming evidence against him, including DNA found under Riley’s fingernails, confirming a violent struggle. Riley, 22, was strangled near the University of Georgia campus during her morning run after Ibarra attacked her. A chilling 18-minute 911 call captured Riley’s desperate attempts to evade her attacker. The author suggested that it wasn’t the evidence that sealed Ibarra’s fate. “[F]or all the political controversy, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt,” Cevallos wrote, suggesting that the politics surrounding illegal immigration — not that Ibarra actually killed Riley — sealed his fate.

The perspective sparked massive and well-deserved criticism, including from Donald Trump Jr., after the article gained traction in conservative social media circles. “You literally can’t make up this level of depravity. These people are sick. The guy is a murderer. He’s an illegal alien that killed an innocent young woman but MSNBC would rather go to bat for him. However, much you hate MSNBC it’s not enough!” he posted on X with a graphic of the headline.

Elsewhere in the article, Cevallos minimized the advantage of Ibarra choosing a bench trial, where a single judge, rather than a jury, decided his fate. The MSNBC analyst argued that Ibarra “stood no chance with a jury” but ultimately gained no benefit from the decision. “But it apparently had no chance with the judge, either, since he was convicted anyway,” Cevallos wrote. He further suggested that the judge might have violated Georgia law by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, describing this decision as “the best glimpse into the judge’s opinion of this defendant.”

Needless to say, the responses to the headline were swift and sharp:

Is Pam Bondi doing a good job?*
This poll subscribes you to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.