What 'not guilty' arguments could Luigi Mangione's possibly lawyers make?

From what I understand he was caught with matching clothes, the weapon, a manifesto, on camera during the act, etc etc. And I've read that he's pleading not guilty.

I don't understand what the defence could possibly be, given all that evidence.

Would they simply argue that they got the wrong guy and that all the 'evidence' is just coincedence? Or is it more nuanced?