What if Jussie is telling the truth?
His brother wrote an article under that title on the BET website.
https://www.bet.com/celebrities/news/2019/04/20/jojo-smollet.html
yeah, and what if the Moon is really made of cheese?
shareThe police didn't have a court case therefore they're going to try the case in the court of public opinion. Typical behavior.
Why would the twins run after the incident if they were hired? That makes no sense.
Why weren't the twins charged for being accomplishes since unlike Smollet they have already admitted their guilt?
Why weren't the twins charged for being accomplishes since unlike Smollet they have already admitted their guilt?
Wouldn't the flip side of this be why weren't the twins charged with assault and battery if they were guilty of attacking him? If Jussie isn't guilty, that would mean they must be. So why would charges be inexplicably dropped against them if this wasn't a fake hate crime orchestrated by Jussie? I have no idea what really happened but based on what's known imo I find it unlikely that Smollett didn't set this up. share
"...based on what's known imo I find it unlikely that Smollett didn't set this up."
Could you be specific? In another post, I asked the same question, but no one provided any proof, yet they were positive he was guilty. The "evidence" I saw that the media mentioned either didn't exist or helped Smollet's case.
Smollet has denied faking it and there isn't enough proof to charge him.
Whether the twins faked it or they really did attack Smollet, both are criminal actions and they should have been charged.
The twins were caught on the store video and running away after the attack. There were also negative texts about Smollet or gays on their phones. It could have been a hate crime. They could have lied about Smollet to get themselves out of trouble.
In my area, it's common for innocent people to spend years in prison before the truth is discovered. They're railroaded by the police and tried in the media. The latest is a mentally disabled guy (autism?), but they needed someone to arrest for a high profile cold case. I learned to be careful about condemning someone based solely on a headline.
"I have no idea what really happened"
Exactly. None of us do. Chicago authorities needs to give it a rest and move on.
It was a hate crime hoax, impure & simple. It comes from the Dem/Lib playbook of slandering their enemies (that is, wise people with common sense) via fake hate crimes. Here are several documented examples from the last few years:
Anti-Muslim Hate Crime In Michigan Turns Out To Be A Hoax (Nov. 2016)
Bisexual Student Fakes Trump-Inspired Hate Crime (Nov. 2016)
Gas Station Racism Goes Viral — Then Police Debunk It (Nov. 2016)
White Men Rob Muslim Woman Of Her Hijab And Wallet — Except It Never Happened (Nov. 2016)
Church Organist Vandalizes Own Church (Nov. 2016)
“Drunk White Men” Attack Muslim Woman In Story That Also Never Happened (Dec. 2016)
White Guy Sets His Own Car On Fire, Paints Racial Slur On His Own Garage (Dec. 2016)
Prankster Tricks Liberal Journalist Into Spreading Anti-Trump Hoax (Dec. 2016)
Student Writes Anti-Muslim Graffiti On His Own Door (Feb. 2017)
Israeli Man Behind Anti-Semitic Bomb Threats in the U.S. (April 2017)
Hoax at St. Olaf (May 2017)
Fake Hate At Air Force Academy Goes Viral (Sept. 2017)
K-State Fake Hate Crime (Nov. 2017)
Racist Graffiti Carried Out By Non-White Student (Nov. 2017)
Waiter Fakes Note Calling Himself A Terrorist (July 2018)
Waitress Fakes Racist Note, Blames Law Enforcement (July 2018)
New York Woman’s Hate Crime That Wasn’t (Sept. 2018)
Student Faked Racist Notes (Dec. 2018)
The Covington Catastrophe (Jan. 2019)
Bonus: Anti-Semitic Vandal Exposed As Democratic Activist (Nov. 2018)
Bonus II: Trump-Inspired Racist Blaze At Black Church Was Carried Out By Black Church-goer (Nov. 2016)
Unfortunately, FACTS to Dems/Libs are like holy water to vampires.
Breitbart nonsense. Yawn!
Wimpy Wuchak!
Reported by numerous sites, just not the one LibTards read. They don't want their delusions shattered!
shareNumerous neo-nazi, extreme right and white nationalist sites. Bigoted nonsense.
shareThe first fake hate crime on the list was reported, eventually, even by the Stormfront supporting Washington Post, to be a hoax:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/21/a-muslim-student-in-michigan-claimed-a-man-threatened-to-set-her-on-fire-police-say-its-a-hoax/?utm_term=.fa54380dd52b
Keelai is a lying propagandist.
Yawn!
You're a racist and Islamophobe!
I agree, I don't know what really happened. This is entirely my opinion, but it just doesn't pass the simple sniff test. Things that have not been answered to anyone's satisfaction:
- the brothers were let go and not charged, why? There are a lot of gay people out there, was their hate toward this particular gay man who was a client and who has paid them a substantial fee really that strong? On the surface it seems unlikely (not impossible). But if this was not orchestrated by Smollett than this is a very serious hate crime, so why wouldn't it continue to be prosecuted?
- Jussie forfeited his $10,000 bond as a condition of the charges being dropped; if he's was wrongly accused and arrested, I can think of no good reason for this.
-Also part of the condition of his charges being dropped was 16 hours of community service. While not a whole lot, since when is someone wrongfully accused and arrested required to do community service. I can think of no good reason for this.
- the judge ordered the court file sealed, why? I can think of no good reason that would exonerate Smollett that this would be done.
-Joseph Magats made a statement saying that the decision was not an exoneration of Smollett, "we stand behind the investigation, we stand behind the decision to charge him...The fact that Smollett feels that we have exonerated him, we have not. I can't make it any clearer than that".
The one part of your post I would clearly disagree with would be where you wrote:
Exactly. None of us do. Chicago authorities needs to give it a rest and move on.
No! If he is guilty and was let go because of some improper deal this should be investigated and dealt with (and Smollett as well as whoever cut him the deal should be held accountable). The circumstances of the Smollett investigation/dropped charges were so unusual that the FBI opened an investigation in March and unless I missed something, that hasn't been concluded. I would love nothing more than for them to finish and say Jussie is completely exonerated and there is no evidence that he played any role in this. But I doubt it because like I said it just doesn't pass the simple sniff test. share
I asked for specific evidence that Smollet is guilty. None was provided in your comment. Your comment only provided questions re: how the case was handled.
In answer to your questions, it appears that the prosecutor couldn't find evidence to make a strong case against Smollet which is why they dropped the case. It's common for celebrities and companies to pay a small amount of money to make a case or lawsuit go away. It costs more to pay a lawyer to defend a case even when they are innocent. Let's say the case went forward with weak evidence, Smollet would've been found innocent, but have to pay his attorneys $100s of thousands of dollars.
Joseph Magats is a public figure making a BS statement to save face. I don't know if the FBI investigation is true or not. I only read that Trump wanted it probably from a tweet. FBI could've ignored him since "tweets" aren't a directive.
I believe most people subconsciously are upset that a black man and/or gay man may have gotten away with something. The police or public figures in Chicago appear to be hounding Smollet because of public pressure or personal embarrassment rather than the merits of the case.
You keep beating the same dead horse and you appear no more intelligent than when you croaked out the same tune two months ago. For starters, you don't seem to have a clue about what constitutes "evidence." If Smullett were to be brought to trial for faking a hate crime, the Osundairo brothers would qualify as what are called "witnesses." Heard of those before? They would state in court that Smullett paid them to fake the crime. This testimony would be admitted into evidence. Other evidence would be put into a play from both sides, and a jury (or judge) would weigh the EVIDENCE and render a verdict. It's not clear whether you're being purposefully dense about this issue or just plain ignorant of how the judicial system works, but in any case you appear to be a shill for Smullett for unstated reasons. Why don't you tell us all why you're *really* here pushing the bogus Smullett propaganda? Your racebaiting is also a failure. You imply that the herd doesn't vigorously pursue white guys who many think has gotten away with a crime. Ever heard of Donald Trump? If you insist on a celebrity comparison, then try Robert Blake or Phil Spector.
shareYou haven't listed any evidence. Once again, there is none. The testimony of the two brothers would be torn apart by any semi-decent lawyer.
For instance, the brothers said that they were paid a check by Smollet for faking the assault. Smollet's response was that the check was for personal training and exercise. When the police retrieved the check, the memo said for personal training and exercise. Furthermore, the brothers run a personal training business. And Smollet said he needed the training for an upcoming music video.
I've been waiting for months for the police to submit all the evidence they had against Smollet. Nada.
"you don't seem to have a clue about what constitutes "evidence.""
LOL. If you knew where I worked, you'd understand how laughable that comment is to me. I'm pretty sure I understand law, evidence and the legal process better than you ever will.
You're illiterate. I implied nothing. I never mentioned white people. Most people in prison are white, genius.
I wrote that people were obsessed with hounding Smollet because of their own biases rather than admitting that the evidence was too weak for prosecution.
Robert Blake was acquitted of his wife's murder which makes my point. There needs to be very strong evidence or a case falls apart in the courtroom.
BTW, acquittal never means found innocent. It means the person wasn't found guilty. Huge difference!
I never said I had specific evidence and clearly stated it was my opinion which I'm basing on what's known about the case. Nothing more complicated than that. You clearly have a different opinion. Sorry but it's ridiculous and unfair to suggest that on a subconscious level I'm upset that a black/gay man may have gotten away with something. There are real victims of hate crimes out there and if Smollett orchestrated this he has made it that much more difficult for those people to come forward. Every time a real victim comes forward people will continue to cry fake and point to the Smollett case.
I think this has become another in a long line of identity politics where because people oppose the President they by default feel the must support Jussie. But if they're both liars and guilty of crimes, I have no problem opposing both of them.
"I never said I had specific evidence..."
Apparently nobody has including the prosecutors which is my point.
"it's ridiculous and unfair to suggest that on a subconscious level I'm upset that a black/gay man may have gotten away with something."
Reread my sentence. I said "I believe most people" and not you specifically. It was also my opinion.
"if Smollett orchestrated this..."
If there were evidence then he should be prosecuted. But once again, there isn't. BTW, a woman came forward with two witnesses to say that Trump raped her, but she is being ignored. Are you bothered by that at all? Are you bothered that there are two Supreme Court Justices who are sexual predators? If you're upset that victims might not be believed, then you should be upset about what has happened with these women.
"identity politics"
I have no idea what that means. Are you saying racism, sexism, homophobia and other isms don't exist?
And if you're concerned by victims being believed, then what is your opinion about a politician who admits to "grabbing them by the pu**y." Trump has a long history of molesting and sexual assault against women. He has admitted on live radio to entering a dressing room where underage girls were in order to see them half-naked. He also supported a pedophile who was running for office. Why are you supporting Trump when he victimizes other people including little children? Are you really concerned about victims?
It's not about Smollet. It's about a witch hunt and lynch mob mentality. Produce evidence or drop it already.
There is so much evidence that even considering that's hes innocent, you would have to be in denial.
If Jussie were smart he would try to get a plea deal - admit his guilt, do a year, pay a 200K fine, and apologize to everyone. - This is his best option.
If he fights this he could do 3 -5 years. But he will be found guilty whether or not he ever admits it.
"There is so much evidence..."
Link?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/osundairo-brothers-jussie-smollett.html
Testimony from the Osundairo brothers that Smullett paid them to stage the attack constitutes evidence. Yes, real evidence having nothing to do with most people's instincts that everything Smullett has to say is bullshit.
The twins said he did. Smollet said he didn't. Case dismissed.
Which is exactly what happened!
If I knew you personally and went to the police to tell them you exposed yourself would that make it true?
Anyone can make up a lie about someone else. That's why prosecutors need strong evidence.
Well 1st Jussie claimed 2 white men did this - the 2 brothers are on camera, buying all the stuff, wearing hasmet suits going to and from the attack site - cell phone records from them to Jussie before and after the attack - a $3500 check from Jussie to them. And much more..
Don't you follow the news?
Dude, he is Jussie Smollett!
sharelol could be!
shareNope. Sorry.
You're just recycling the same old stuff that I already addressed. Just read my old posts above.
I'll address the ski masks since that's new. Smollet didn't see their faces since he said they were wearing ski masks. He assumed they were white because of what they said and did: the N word, supporting MAGA and the noose.
And if you're concerned by victims being believed, then what is your opinion about a politician who admits to "grabbing them by the pu**y." Trump has a long history of molesting and sexual assault against women. He has admitted on live radio to entering a dressing room where underage girls were in order to see them half-naked. He also supported a pedophile who was running for office. Why are you supporting Trump when he victimizes other people including little children? Are you really concerned about victims?
And there it is. This is what I’m talking about when I say identity politics. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. You oppose Trump. Smollett opposes Trump. Therefore you support Smollett. It’s a line down the middle between left and right and you blindly support those on your side of the line. And doing that inevitably leads to whataboutism (forget Smollett, what about what Trump did?). I respectfully gave my differing opinion on Smollett so you ask me why I’m supporting Trump? This despite me clearly saying in my last message of Smollett and the President: "But if they're both liars and guilty of crimes, I have no problem opposing both of them." So if that wasn't sufficient for you, I’ll say this as clearly as I can; I do not support Donald Trump in any way, shape, or form. I despise Donald Trump. Despise him with every fiber of my being. I barely knew what the ACLU and SPLC were before Trump took office and now I’ve donated several times to them over the past two years. I look forward to the day when he is out of office and faces justice for what I believe are numerous crimes.
But I refuse to allow my opinion of Donald Trump to lead me down a path where I can’t recognize the wrong doings of those who may share my ideology. This board and thread is about Smollett. I believe Smollett hired the two brothers to fake an attack. I’ve seen nothing to sway me from that belief. Whether his exact motive was a career boost or to paint Trump and his supporters in a bad light, I don’t know. But I do know that this whole incident makes real hate crimes that much harder to prove, and that’s the real shame of it.
share
"I think this has become another in a long line of identity politics where because people oppose the President they by default feel the must support Jussie."
You brought up Trump - not me.
That term "identity politics" sounds derisive to me. It sounds like a term used by someone against marginalized people who fight to be treated with equality and respect within society.
You're stereotyping me based on your personal biases. I don't support Smollet. I never heard of him before this case. Once again, I point to evidence needed in a legal case.
Let's examine the physical evidence re: the brothers first. We know they are the attackers because there is hard evidence against them:
1) the store video where they are buying the ski masks and other items in the attack.
2) the video of the twins running from the scene of the attack
The text with hostile messages re: gays could point to motive by any competent lawyer.
Let's examine the physical evidence re: Smollet:
1) Smollet's personal check
The check states in the memo for physical training and nutrition which actually helps Smollet's defense especially when the twins run a physical training business. Smollet said the check was for physical training before it was produced!
I'm really shocked by how little understanding of basic legal procedure some people have. It should be common knowledge that evidence is needed in a case as well as the difference between strong and weak evidence.
If you read and compare the indictments for Smollet and Manafort then you'll understand why Smollet's charges were dropped while Manafort is in prison. Manafort's includes plenty of physical evidence including bank, tax and business records. Smollet's is the testimony of two low-level drug dealers and criminals.
If Smollet is telling the truth and he was really attacked, then he never received justice. It's like the woman who was raped, but called a whore in court because she wore a short skirt during the attack.
BTW, how do you know Smollett opposes Trump? More stereotyping?
share[deleted]
BTW, how do you know Smollett opposes Trump? More stereotyping
No I actually read up on shit before forming an opinion. He stated he believed the attack was motivated by his outspoken criticism of Trump. A more reasonable question would be how do you NOT know Smollett opposes Trump? It's at the very heart of the case you've written dozens of posts on.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/14/jussie-smollett-interview-alleged-attack-forever-changed-trump
From the article:
In his first detailed interview since the alleged 29 January assault, Smollett was asked by Good Morning America on ABC News why he thinks he was targeted. In his reply, he referred to Trump by his moniker as the 45th president of the United States.
"I come really, really hard against 45,” he said. “I come really, really hard against his administration and I don’t hold my tongue.”
So go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong about this too. share
I'm really shocked by how little understanding of basic legal procedure some people have.
I have a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, interned in a courthouse, have worked as a paralegal and in law enforcement when I was younger. I know what the burden of proof is in a criminal case. This isn't a court of law though, it's a message board and I don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt here to form my opinion as to whether I believe he is most likely guilty or not. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty and I'm quite comfortable with my belief that he is a double murderer. Smollett was indicted by a grand jury and since the judge sealed the court records (again no good reason I can think of that would be favorable to Smollett for this) we don't know what evidence was presented to them.
You claim not to support Smollett yet you have spent how many posts trying unsuccessfully to persuade me from my opinion (which I've conceded is nothing more than that, just an opinion) of him being most likely guilty? If that's not supporting him I don't know what is.
Your check argument is really ridiculous...would you expect him to write "fake hate crime" in the memo line? Of course he would write something plausible yet legal in there if he was paying them money for some nefarious purpose (a better argument would be to question why he would pay by check at all if it was payment for an illegal act...the memo line is irrelevant though).
And yes I did mention Trump because the issue of "this is MAGA country" is at the heart of this case and what's made it so divisive. Anyone can see that. But instead of actually giving any consideration to what I wrote about identity politics you proved my point by calling me a Trump supporter simply because I believe Jussie to be most likely guilty (and despite me saying in the previous post I oppose Trump). Sorry innocent victims of hate crime aren't routinely ordered to surrender $10k and complete community service...funny how Smollett isn't complaining about that isn't it? If I was innocent and had to do those things I'd sure be complaining about that. We're now at the point where we are going in circles so I have nothing else to add other than I don't begrudge you your opinion, kindly stop begrudging me mine. share
"...form my opinion as to whether I believe he is most likely guilty or not."
That's my point. It is only an opinion. There are others who are acting as if it were a fact including the police and Chicago officials. They should present evidence or let it go.
"O.J. Simpson "
I watched 95% of the trial live. I didn't want my opinion to be colored by bias news reporting. Personally, I believe he's guilty, but the evidence was weak. I agree with the jurors' verdict and I had reached the same conclusion shortly before their's was announced.
"we don't know what evidence was presented to them. "
The evidence should support the indictment that the prosecutors submitted. I didn't find anything in it which wasn't already publicly known.
"you have spent how many posts..."
I thought this was a dead thread, but the little bell on the top right of my screen continues to notify me. If you don't reply, then I don't either.
"Your check argument..."
The check memo backs up Smollet's story, therefore it's very relevant. Your theorizing is personal opinion and not admissible in court. You should know that.
"a better argument would be to question why he would pay by check at all if it was payment for an illegal act"
Exactly!!!! Therefore the existence of a check shows his act wasn't illegal since you yourself stated a person would use cash if he were involved in an illegal action.
If you're involved in the legal field then you know innocent people settle by paying fines, etc. without admission of wrongdoing all the time.
"I think this has become another in a long line of identity politics where because people oppose the President they by default feel the must support Jussie"
Nothing about MAGA. "Identity politics" is a code term conservatives use so don't fault me if I took you for one.
"I believe Jussie to be most likely guilty..."
I don't know if Smollet is guilty or not, but there is a possibility of a set-up by the brothers to cover a hate crime. Who knows?
The evidence against OJ was weak? His blood was all over the crime scene - he must have had the stupidest jury in history - OJ killed those people - regardless of what the idiot jury said.
shareThe same blood evidence that the detective who perjured himself on the stand and was shown to be racist had handled? LOL!
During the OJ trial, I read a statistic that said over 95% of cases in which the cop/detective was shown to have lied during testimony ended up in acquittals.
If the jury is told to discount all of Dennis Furman's testimony and any evidence he handled, then there's no case since he handled practically all of the evidence. I read that's usually the instruction given to juries when someone perjures themselves.
If the jury was allowed to consider his testimony and the evidence, then it creates reasonable doubt because he perjured himself and the defense attorneys proved he was a racist. The defense attorneys showed that the two detectives mishandled the blood by carrying it around with them all day and had plenty of time to tamper with it. OJ's attorneys said Furman was motivated by his racism to tamper with the blood he carried around all day.
The prosecuting attorneys made numerous mistakes besides placing a liar on the stand. The glove not fitting was a major disaster. They also left open several questions that the defense had presented. Their closing argument was very weak, too. I still remember the defense's rhyme decades later, "If the glove doesn't fit, then you must acquit!"
Prosecuting attorneys normal opponents are public defenders and cheapy defense lawyers - not the high-caliber defense attorneys that OJ's money bought.
Don't blame the jury! One of them said he believed OJ was guilty, but had to acquit based on how the case was presented in court. I felt the same exact way.
BTW, dummy OJ still hasn't learned his lesson. You'd think he'd lay low instead of starting a twitter account. Sheesh!
On a friendlier note if you would like a good read on the OJ case (and how the prosecution bungled it) check out Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi. His take on how the Mark Furhman situation should've been handled was brilliant.
shareDuring the OJ trial, the defense team conducted at least three mock trials in Arizona. They lost every single one and that was before Furman perjured himself.
"...the majority of the 17 men and women concluded that the circumstantial evidence against Mr. Simpson wasn't enough to convict him of killing his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald L. Goldman.
"There is no murder weapon, no eyewitness, nothing to really tie him to the scene," said Charles Scruggs..."More or less, it's inconclusive."
The mock jurors ... Nine were black and eight were white, and the women outnumbered men..."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-09-02-1994245168-story.html
A few things Bugliesi wrote are not true. Most people thought the case was an open and shut one and that OJ was going to be found guilty - including me. He implies that black jurors couldn't be objective which is offensive and racist. Furman shouldn't have been on the stand. OJ never testified so I'm not sure what Buglieri is talking about.
I agree that the defense team was horrible and Ito was star struck. Brown family was money hungry and vile. They sold topless Nicole photos to the tabloids during the trial and had told Nicole to stay with OJ because he gave them money. The Goldmans always handled themselves with dignity. They still have my condolences for their loss.
If you're involved in the legal field then you know innocent people settle by paying fines, etc. without admission of wrongdoing all the time.
No...they may enter into some sort of plea deal, but plea agreements include an admission of guilt (often to lesser or even misdemeanor charges. But remember this is a criminal case, which is not the same as if it were a civil case where an agreement could be reached between parties in which the defendant makes no admission of guilt or liability). The prosecutor in this case seems to have reached some kind of civil resolution with Smollett in which charges were dropped which is very unusual. If my legal experience isn't sufficient for you (and it shouldn't be), consider what the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association and National District Attorneys Association had to say. From the Wikipedia entry on the Smollett case:
The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association said that the dismissal was "highly unusual", and that the "manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the state. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State's Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal", and said that several of the statements made by Foxx regarding the handling of the case were false or misleading. The National District Attorneys Association released a statement saying that a prosecutor should not take advice from politically connected friends of the accused, should not recuse herself without recusing the entire office, and noted that "a case with the consequential effects of Mr. Smollett's should not be resolved without a finding of guilt or innocence share
I found something interesting. Smollet initially said one of the men was white because he saw his skin under the mask near his eye. He couldn't identify the second man's race.
The two men ran past a hotel employee who described the first man as white and the second as race unknown. He said the skin near his eye was white under the mask.
It's in the police records near bottom of page under Smollet Batch 2, page 210.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/30/728356084/chicago-police-roll-out-hundreds-of-pages-of-records-in-jussie-smollett-case
Smollet's description is on page 13.
That's why I prefer the source material rather than news reports. I'd like to see the original videos, all texts and Foxx's texts and documents to judge for myself. I can't locate them.
The last documents, page 158 describes it as a settlement. My guess is either the evidence was weak or it was done as a favor. It appears that Foxx was contacted by many people who wanted the case gone.
Smollet refused to press charges against the brothers, but that appears to be his attorney's decision.
I'm still undecided about Smollet, but I'm sure more will come out.