Daniel Penny Bombshell: Neely Was Alive When NYPD Arrived—But Officers Refused Aid, Letting Penny Take The Fall
New revelations have emerged in the death of Jordan Neely on the New York City subway, challenging the media's reporting of the incident and raising serious concerns about the NYPD’s handling of the case.
According to recently released details, Neely was still alive when police arrived but died later due to a lack of immediate aid. Officers allegedly chose not to intervene, reportedly too disgusted by Neely’s dirty physical state to administer potentially life-saving assistance. This new information suggests the NYPD and their prosecutors are letting former Marine Daniel Penny take the blame for Neely's death, potentially to avoid scrutiny and accountability for their own actions.
The initial public narrative was that Penny, who held Neely in a chokehold to subdue him after Neely threatened to kill the surrounding passengers, acted "excessively" and caused Neely’s immediate death. Penny was charged with second-degree manslaughter, and public opinion quickly polarized over his use of force and perceived role in Neely’s death. However, these new details indicate that NYPD officers arrived while Neely was still alive and capable of receiving care—yet failed to offer it.
Up until now, the public and media have been fed a more simplified story: that Daniel Penny’s chokehold directly led to Jordan Neely’s death, and that Penny applied an excessive amount of force, fully aware that his actions could prove fatal. This was central to the prosecution’s opening argument, painting Penny as a former Marine who should have known better and consciously disregarded Neely’s safety. The entire case against Penny hinges on this narrative—on the idea that his choice of restraint was both reckless and fatal. However, these new revelations turn this assumption on its head.
Yet mainstream media has given these details less coverage because it undermines their preferred narrative that Penny is a "dangerous white male vigilante" rather than a brave man willing to stand up for those being faced with threats of violence.
Neely's Extensive Criminal Record and the System’s Failures
Neely’s history as a repeat violent offender is also notable, with multiple arrests for assault, including one on an elderly woman among other horrific instances. His freedom to roam the city, despite his repeated violence, raises questions about the policies that allowed him to return to the streets. Why did the system fail to intervene?
These are not isolated issues but point to a broader leniency within the NYPD and the city’s "progressive" criminal justice policies, reflecting a larger trend toward leniency on repeat offenders. The city’s soft-on-crime approach, encouraged by liberal leadership sidelines public safety. In Neely’s case, this approach enabled him to remain free without intervention, despite a history of assaults.
Together, these factors—the NYPD’s alleged inaction, Neely’s freedom despite a violent past, and the prosecution’s narrow framing of events—illustrate how failures across multiple institutions compounded to create this incident.
Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.