Remember when Jussie Smollett reported being attacked in a horrific anti-gay, anti-black hate crime

[EffieBlack]

and people here questioned his story because he didn't want to give his phone to the police so they could confirm his statement that he was on the phone with his manager at the time of the attack?

And remember when we said that maybe he didn't want to turn over his phone because it had lots of unrelated personal information on it and the police could get the information they wanted through other means, and, besides, he had good reason not to trust the Chicago police, we were told that if he were really telling the truth and had actually been attacked, he should have no problem cooperating with the police - and so his refusal to cooperate with the police on this one particular thing, even if he thought what they were asking was an invasion of his privacy, was proof that he was likely lying about the incident?

Yeah. Me, too.

[Empowerer]

1. I remember it well

Seems like a lifetime ago, doesn't it?

[Beakybird]

2. Is there proof besides his word that he was attacked?

[EffieBlack]

3. There's physical evidence that he was assaulted

Why do you ask?

[jberryhill]

13. Just so you know

"Evidence" and "proof" are different things, and every lawyer knows that. Confusing the concepts of "evidence" and "proof" is a rookie law student mistake, which is why every lawyer is sensitive to the difference between those two words. I doubt there is a lawyer alive who did not get the "evidence is not proof" lecture at one point or another.

So when you ask "is there proof?" and a lawyer says "there is evidence", you will know that your question was dodged.

[Empowerer]

17. I'm an attorney and frequently use the terms interchangeably in normal conversation

FYI, Effie is hardly a "rookie" - she's a respected lawyer and law professor, among other things. And I think it's likely that she has just as much expertise as as you (and probably more), notwithstanding your propensity for bragging about your experience as if you're a modern day Oliver Wendell Holmes.

[jberryhill]

20. Bragging about my experience?

I can't recall mentioning much about anything I've done other than once referring to a run-in with the Trump Organization when someone accused me of being a troll.

It simply struck me as odd that a request for "proof" was met by a non-specific statement about "evidence", since just about anything is "evidence". The implication was not that anyone was a "rookie". Far from it.

I really haven't followed this particular story, and am curious to know what it's about, other than some vague awareness that people dispute Smollet's claim. But why that matters, I don't know.

I further assumed from the thread that there had been some new development proving or disproving something or other. But I gather this is one of those rhetorical exercises bearing no tangible relation to the story being used as a vehicle to cast aspersions on the motives of others at DU.

[EffieBlack]

21. Interesting

Two posts from you in this thread, neither of which actually responded to the OP but did manage to incorporate at least two insults and a Restatement (First) on the Appropriate Use of Legal Terminology on an Online Discussion Board.

Nicely done.

[sheshe2]

27. Snicker.

Bingo.

[jberryhill]

48. Thank goodness one can find the funny side of a bias attack

[jberryhill]

34. Because I was not responding to the OP

Last edited Thu Feb 14, 2019, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

I was responding to the person who had a question about proof and who received a nonresponsive answer.

Knowing little about this incident, I was likewise curious.

But now I understand that the point of the OP was to make some sort of insinuation about unidentified others on DU against whom you have some kind of grudge, or something to that effect.

Whatever is meant by the OP, it is obviously not a good faith effort to advance any sort of discussion.

If I had to guess, since I do not follow everything you post on DU, then I would guess that your post has something to do about jumping to conclusions based on accusations, as there appear to be developing questions over whatever happened to Mr. Smollet.

But this is one of those species of OP more intended as a “so there!” by the author directed toward some class of persons who are believed to keep notes on what anyone here has said about any of dozens of topics.

[KentuckyWoman]

93. Since when do we put the onus of proof on the victim?

[nolabear]

5. Enjoy your short stay.

[Clash City Rocker]

76. Oh, now I'm going to wonder what this fool said

I’m sure it wasn’t all that interesting, but I’m oddly curious anyhow.

[JHB]

6. Better question...

Why was it so all-fired important for you to join DU just to comment on this?

[irisblue]

7. What do you like on pizza NOYB?

[Aristus]

14. We'll never know...

n/t

[irisblue]

15. 🍕 delievered. 😂

[Aristus]

16. Yes.

I wish we still had the "He Disrupted Poorly" headstone...

[irisblue]

18. After going in to tbe basement of the interwebz, I found a copy, but can only get it to imgur

https://m.imgur.com/HfgYMlh

[Caliman73]

82. I miss those. They should bring it back.

NT.

[sheshe2]

28. Signed sealed delivered.

Thank MIRT.

[LisaL]

29. Poster got tombstoned over questioning whether the story adds up.

Does the story add up?

[TeeYiYi]

133. The problem...

...wasn't with the poster questioning the validity of the story.

The poster was tombstoned for being a racist, homophobic MAGAt with an ax to grind, and a litany of hateful, right wing talking points to spew; replete with a hate speech website address, for all to follow...

The poster continued to rudely attack the OP, (a Black woman and respected DUer,) while defending white racists and Trump supporters against the "lies and accusations" made by "multiple cases of Muslim women," "gay guys," and "black people."

The post was offensive on every level imaginable... Take this quote, for example... "He still had the rope around his neck 45 minutes later when the normal human reaction is to remove such a thing immediately" ... Now, how in the fuck would that poster have even the slightest idea of what it feels like to have a noose around their neck?... much less, be in a position to exclaim what "normal" people do when faced with such an everyday, pesky conundrum?...

The only "liberal wet-dream" turned out to be the delivery of a richly deserved pizza.

TYY

[WeekiWater]

8. Not everyone is as sheltered as you.

Sheltered in moms basement.

[TeeYiYi]

9. You're still here...

TYY

[Empowerer]

10. Nothing but crickets so far, I see

Is it that no one remembers back that far (because two weeks was really long ago) or that they remember it just as well as you do, but can't figure out how to reconcile their arguments back then with their current position on a different case?

Inquiring minds, etc.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Some of us have not changed our positions.

Neither rape survivors nor Jussie Smollet are obligated to prosecute merely because they are victims of a crime, in order to survive allegations of being a right wing troll, or of making stuff up.

The crickets you see may well be becasue this post by the OP seems to contradict the very vocal advocacy she has been engaged in for Fairfax's survivors should press charges or shut up/forfeit any presumption of believability.

[Empowerer]

11. Kick

[Empowerer]

19. Crickets, still

Hmmm

[cwydro]

22. I'm not sure how the OP expects people to respond.

The OP is framed as a rehetorical question.

[jberryhill]

31. It seems to be an accusation of some kind

But whom is being accused of what is unclear.

[cwydro]

33. Yes, it does seem a wee bit accusatory.

Meanwhile, that Smollett story seems to be taking on a life of its own.

[jberryhill]

35. It's one that wasn't on my radar

So I’m still mystified about what I’m being invited to “remember”, not having read or commented on it at the time, and now being curious.

Is this one of those “Haha! I was right and you were all wrong!” posts? Can we at least recap what prize was being offered to the winner of this contest?

[cwydro]

37. Yes, I missed most of the original story myself because I'm currently traveling.

I think this particular story may turn out to be a poor example to have been selected for whatever point the OP was trying to make.

[jberryhill]

38. I can't tell

The OP invites us to “remember” some prior discussion of the topic, but I don’t have my scorecard of “who thought what about what” in the “let’s react to the news of the moment” sweepstakes.

So was the OP skeptical of the story, not skeptical, or was there some other point we are supposed to “remember” in the notes we are supposed to have kept?

I didn’t know there was going to be a quiz.

[cwydro]

50. Lol.

It’s all very confusing.

[jberryhill]

58. When is someone going to do something about all these crickets?

[EffieBlack]

61. Nope.

Not an accusation at all. Reread the OP.

It was simply a reminder that many people here were very quick to question Smollett's story because they heard he wasn't cooperating fully with the police (which the police later said wasn't the case). Based solely on his reported refusal to turn over his cellphone, they began to publicly suspect that he was lying about being attacked. On the other hand, in later discussions about the Fairfax case, when anyone questioned why Vanessa Tyson had not filed a police report after she went public with her rape accusation, we were shot down immediately, accused of calling her a liar and attacking Dr. Tyson, in particular, and rape victims, in general, etc., even though we did nothing of the kind.

It's not unusual for people not to readily assume that whoever makes an accusation is telling the truth, solely based on the accusation. Nor is it uncommon to take into account other factors surrounding the accusation - such as how a victim cooperates with the police once the crime is reported or made public - when weighing credibility and doing so doesn't mean that the victim is being attacked, called a liar, mistreated, etc.

I don't know whether Smollett was attacked or not. I'm waiting for more facts. I also don't know whether or not Justin Fairfax raped Vanessa Tyson - and am waiting for more facts. But I do know that there's nothing wrong with not assuming that an accusation is true without more information, whether it's an accusation or rape or a hate crime.

[sheshe2]

64. Yes.

I don't know whether Smollett was attacked or not. I'm waiting for more facts. I also don't know whether or not Justin Fairfax raped Vanessa Tyson - and am waiting for more facts. But I do know that there's nothing wrong with not assuming that an accusation is true without more information, whether it's an accusation or rape or a hate crime.

Thank you Effie. Not understanding the attacks on you here.

[jberryhill]

67. "many people here were very quick to question Smollett's story"

So what?

Really. So what?

It’s an internet discussion forum which frequently has discussions of a range of current events.

People speculate and share their opinions of those events.

Sometimes those opinions and impressions differ.

Yes, some people thought it was odd that two people would be hanging out at 2am in arctic cold weather in the general vicinity away from someone’s residence for a targeted attack on the off chance they went out at that hour. These people had the temerity to express themselves ona discussion forum.

So effing what?

Some folks hailed Snowden and Assange as heroes, for example. Some didn’t. Maybe some still do. So what?

Some thought Avenatti was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Some didn’t. Maybe some still do. So what?

I’m sure there are people here who KNOW who killed Jon Benet Ramsey.

This isn’t a courtroom. No one here is going to be on a jury in the case nor will they influence a jury.

Who knows, maybe more facts will come to light and there will be another dramatic turn of events.

Stuff happens. People have opinions, speculations, questions, guesses, and so on. Often, they differ.

You should have been here for the Duke lacrosse thing. That was a real rollercoaster ride.

It’s a shame that people tend to use the infinite and bizarre variety of human events involving real people simply as fodder for one narrative or another, but people are going to do that too.

But insisting “thou shalt not discuss a news item, nor form an impression about it until all the facts are in” on an Internet discussion forum is pretty much pointless.

I still don’t understand the point of the OP in this thread since I was attending a conference when this story broke and don’t remember who said what. Nor do I care. If I ever get so hard up that I keep track of “who thought what about X on DU” then I will have truly run out of things which matter.

If someone’s opinions or way of expressing themselves keeps you up at night, there’s an ignore button. I have a very select list, which tends to rotate, since people on my ignore list tend to go bye-bye before long. But I often find discussingor arguing with people whose opinions differ from mine to be enlightening. What’s truly amazing is that there are people who disagree with me who somehow manage to STILL disagree with me, even after I’ve unequivocally set them straight. Hard to believe, really.

[EffieBlack]

68. You've posted 10 times so far in this thread to snark or say you don't get my OP or you don't care

OK. You don't get it and you don't care.

Gotcha.

[EffieBlack]

70. "previous thread on the topic of this story-You will find a complete absence of any comment from me"

Yes, I'm sure that's the case.

Which makes your obsession with this particular thread on the topic all the more bizarre.

But, whatever floats your boat ...

[jberryhill]

72. Like i said

I was away at a conference, and didn’t spend UCB time engaged with news or on DU for a couple of days.

My interest wa piqued by your use of the word “proof” in the OP, and your hedging in response to a question about “proof” in the responses to your OP. I’ve explained that in a longer post in this thread.

Do I have your perrmission to continue posting if I so desire?

[jberryhill]

71. And maybe i should be more specific

In your run-on rhetorical question #2, you accuse others of taking his non-cooperation as “proof” of something to hide.

When asked if there is “proof” of his being attacked, you say there is “evidence” of his being attacked.

It’s a conversational double standard which, surprise, only works one way.

Someone could consider his non-cooperation to be evidence of having something to hide.

Someone could consider his own testimony as evidence he was attacked.

Neither is “proof” of either proposition.

And that’s your basic hypocrisy here. As with anything, there is “evidence” either way.

Yeah, some people speculated that his lack of cooperation was a reason to doubt him. Just like you have proposed with Fairfax’s accuser not reporting a crime.

Is it “proof”? No. But you are not so forgiving in your OP when you accuse others of claiming that evidence was “proof”.

So then someone asks if there is “proof” of an attack, in the manner that you have accused others of claiming “proof” of evasion, and what did you? You hedge by saying there is “evidence” of one.

Well, golly, there was “evidence” that he was being evasive in the investigation into his claims too.

So, no, other than “I’m upset people dont think the way I do and don’t see things my way” I well and truly still do not understand the point of the OP.

[Empowerer]

74. Wow, dude. Just ask her to the prom already.

Sheesh!

[George II]

75. Bazinga!

[EffieBlack]

78. LOL!

But alas, he, too, has gone away. At least from this thread.

Was it something I said?

[cwydro]

81. My suspicions about his story had nothing whatsoever to do with his phone.

I didn’t understand how two random MAGA supporters (in Chicago no less) recognized a not very well known actor in the middle of the night in record cold temps. No doubt he was bundled up.

Why would MAGA types watch Empire?

Why would they be lurking around in record cold?

If he was coming home from the airport, why not swing by in the warm taxi to pick up food? Is there no delivery in Chicago?

Despite multitudes of cameras in the area, there were 60 seconds (the attack) that somehow weren’t captured.

I know the fact that people doubted him for other reasons maybe fits the rhetorical point you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t negate the fact that many doubted his story from the get-go. I don’t see his story and the Fairfax story comparable in any way.

[Swagman]

108. I'm uneasy with the blanket acceptance

that he lied or it was a set-up.

I know 'show-biz' folk go to extraordinary lengths to garner publicity but this doesn't strike me as a clever way to.

One furphy made was that he was being dropped from the show but that seems to be untrue so in that case it would be a down right pathetic publicity stunt and fairly dangerous were it to backfire (or has).
It would have to be one of the most bizarre and riskiest of PR stunts with very little to gain if it worked.
Then again- people do strange things and celebs are no different to anyone else.

The phone business sounds perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

Then again the alleged suspects seem to have been released without bail which is odd. But their claim they were paid by Smollett to do it isn't worth much at this stage. It's a bit like saying someone paid me to rob the bank.

Even if the police claim this was a set-up by Smollett he is as entitled to the presumption of innocence as would any alleged attackers be.

[USALiberal]

23. ???

[Ace Rothstein]

24. Sounds like he's now being investigated for a possible hoax.

The whole thing sounded like liberal fan fiction from the beginning.

[cwydro]

25. It's getting weirder every day.

Stranger hoaxes have happened.

[lunasun]

44. Yes it does and as a Chicagoan, I will be upset he chose Chicago for the location to play out this

hoax, if true.

[madville]

26. Sources: Jussie Smollett staged attack with help of others, allegedly being written off 'Empire'

https://abc7chicago.com/sources-smollett-staged-attack-with-help-of-others-allegedly-being-written-off-empire/5138497/


CHICAGO -- Chicago police confirmed Thursday that detectives are talking to two persons of interest in connection with the alleged attack on "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett.

Multiple sources have told ABC7 Eyewitness News that police are investigating whether Smollett and the two men staged the attack allegedly because Smollett was being written off of "Empire."

A source familiar with the investigation told the ABC7 I-Team that Smollett failed to appear for an interview with detectives earlier Thursday.

A source briefed on the Smollett investigation confirmed to ABC News that Chicago police are questioning the two persons of interest -- one of whom has appeared on "Empire."

[grossproffit]

41. Chicago police are denying these reports. Empire has also denied his being written off the show.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/430125-smollett-allegedly-staged-attack-over-being-written-off-empire

[xmas74]

79. I don't know about him being written off.

Rumor is that the show might not be renewed. Taraji P Hensen might be leaving to work on her film career while it's hot-and who could blame her? She's one of the biggest draws of the show and as of this time it's up in the air on whether the show will be renewed. Most believe it will, though ratings are down compared to past seasons.


I don't know if they will be writing anyone off right now, especially if they are waiting for a renewal.

[LisaL]

30. Or maybe there was another reason altogether why he didn't turn over his phone.

[madville]

32. That's what I was thinking

He may have been in contact with the alleged attackers before it happened. That would be plausible. No way Chicago PD is not getting a warrant for his full records and access to his phone now. Maybe there is something there, maybe not.

[cwydro]

36. I've really reserved judgement on this for a while, but things aren't adding up.

MAGA supporters from Nigeria? He first said his attackers were white, now he is sure these two are the guys?

I watched the GMA interview, and I didn’t find him believable in the least. Almost like overacting, especially at the end. I’m in the UK, and it’s even made the news here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Does anybody know his motivation for lying?

[cwydro]

40. The motivation suggested on the Chicago area stations is that he was being written off the show.

The Nigerian guys who supposedly attacked him were extras on the show.

The whole thing is bizarre.

[sheshe2]

65. Well.

Perhaps not.

Star Member grossproffit (5,393 posts)

41. Chicago police are denying these reports. Empire has also denied his being written off the show.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/430125-smollett-allegedly-staged-attack-over-being-written-off-empire

[cwydro]

83. I think it was publicity.

His concert the following week benefited immensely from all the publicity.

Unfortunately, it may backfire on him.

[happybird]

104. Reminds me of those faked receipts

with no tip and a nasty note, supposedly left by customers.

Publicity, attention, and the grand drama of social media outrage followed by sympathy would be my guess for motivation.

[PTWB]

42. Why wouldn't the police just subpoena the phone records?

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2019, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

If they wanted into his physical phone it’s for evidence of something else - not who he’s talking to. Hell, I often delete text and call history from my phone. The phone company records would be the only accurate source.

[madville]

46. Probably already been done

They'll get a warrant for the phone company records, his manager's records and probably to examine their devices as well. I say "IF" there is suspicion of a conspiracy there is going to be a footprint somewhere and probably some money changing hands. These guys wouldn't have done something this weird unless it was coordinated by someone.

[USALiberal]

97. true

[Dr. Strange]

100. Word on the street...

(and by street, I mean Twitter ) is that the police did subpoena the phone records, and in the meantime, Smollet handed over a redacted spreadsheet of his phone records. The detectives looked at the real records, and focused on the redacted calls, which lead them to the Nigerian brothers.

[Swagman]

109. presumably they would if they think the story is bogus

but as an alleged victim he has certain rights. A bit odd if cops asked straight up for his phone if they haven't yet decided the abuse claim is not true.

There may be good legal reasons he refused to hand over a phone. After all it's now our main communication device and there is bound to be all sorts of confidential information on it.
Police can easily obtain phone records though and see what calls were made if not the content.

[Demonaut]

45. would he be ever justified with lying?

[madville]

47. Nope

Makes everyone doubt and be suspect of real claims. It's possible it was coordinated without his knowledge though, maybe by other people that could benefit from it, Smollett could still be the victim in all this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. This hasn't aged well.

[912gdm]

52. noooope.

[QC]

96. And looks worse by the day. n/t

[Mosby]

125. I wonder if she knows about self delete?

[Tipperary]

134. Seems a fair question.

One wonders.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

51. The last thing I paid attention to about this was that

the police were looking at video footage in that area, and had not yet come across anything that showed the attack.

Which seems a bit, I don't know, suspicious? Not turning over the phone doesn't particularly bother me, but local video not showing anything, hmmmm? Also, he was out in the early hours of the morning and some guys were out in the same area and recognized him and were all geared up to attack? Why exactly is my bullshit meter vibrating?

So people weren't questioning his story because he didn't want to give his phone to the police, but because there's simply no outside evidence the attack occurred. Such as, video footage. Which doesn't seem to show anything.

[cwydro]

59. He declared unequivocally yesterday on GMA that those were the guys too.

They are black.

He swore the attackers were white. Not good.

[GusBob]

53. The one thing that struck me as odd

Chicago Illinois is not MAGA country

When he claimed the attackers said that, it bounced off me for some reason

[cwydro]

55. I thought it odd that two MAGA supporters would recognize an actor in the middle of the night.

No doubt he was bundled up that very cold night. How would they recognize someone from that show?

I don’t watch the show and sure as hell wouldn’t recognize him in the middle of the day. Doesn’t seem a likely show for MAGA watching.

[MountCleaners]

62. Okay, but...

One thing I remember from my teenage years (and granted, this was in the late 80's) was that sometimes nazi skinhead types from downstate or elsewhere (Indiana or wherever - the south side is right across the skyway) would come to the south side strictly to intimidate and cause trouble, almost always at night. I'm not aware of them venturing into actual black neighborhoods, but they used to come to the far south side neighborhoods where there were a lot of Polish and harass the punk or new wave or gay kids and the Polish people and would paint swastikas all over the place.

It's been known to happen, and I could believe that some downstate or out-of-state crackas would stalk and harass a gay black celebrity. For real.

[xmas74]

80. Yep.

A friend from high school was beaten up years ago outside a well known gay bar in Chicago. He swore they were skinheads who were trolling for a fight in the middle of the night. They never caught the guys and since this was the mid nineties no one really tried or cared at the time.

[MountCleaners]

86. Yeah, I used to live in Boys Town

I remember walking down the streets and sometimes skinheads would drive through the area and yell homophobic slurs at people. Sometimes they'd come through the neighborhood just to harass. Once in a while I'd see an actual skin just walking down the street going about their business. You could tell they were skins just from the clothes or pins they'd wear.

[DeminPennswoods]

54. All very odd

What struck me was the lack of video evidence. Today there are security cameras everywhere, yet there has been nothing found but the video of the 2 people seen walking in the area around the time of the alleged incident. The latest story today said that Smollet and his agent turned over phone records, but they had redacted them. I'm not sure I'd trust the police with a cell phone either, but if the phone records are needed, they'll just supoena them.

[Raine]

56. Sounding more and more the reason for not turning over the phone ... because it was a hoax

and he knew that the phone would give the whole stunt away.

[cwydro]

57. The lawyer for the two accused say they are friends with Smollett.

They work out with him.

And he said to GMA yesterday he “knew” they were the ones.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Demovictory9]

85. rumor is that Smollett was going lose his TV role

[jberryhill]

60. Remember when the two people arrested in the case were coworkers of his?

And his cell phone (along with other information from cell phones having been determined to be in the area) might have information about communications with the two suspects who were known to him?

One of the things that can be done in police investigations is to get a wealth of information about cell phones that were in a given area during a given time frame.

[cwydro]

63. Wait. Is that crickets I hear?

[George II]

66. Two arrests this afternoon - both charged with battery. Chicago police don't arrest suspects...

...for no reason at all.

[dalton99a]

77. Two men have been released without charging

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-men-arrested-jussie-smollett-case-are-released-due-new-n971866
Two men arrested in Jussie Smollett case are released 'due to new evidence,' police say
No charges were filed against the men, and "detectives have additional investigative work to complete," a police spokesman said.
Feb. 15, 2019, 9:43 PM CST
By Phil Helsel

[Dr. Strange]

87. And Smollet just hired Michael Monico as his defense attorney.

(Michael Cohen's defense attorney, no less.)

Damn this case is full of weirdness.

[madville]

88. CPD now says they were released due to "new evidence"

Provided by the two and information obtained from their interrogations.

[madville]

84. My guess

They cut a deal and turned on whoever set this whole thing up.

[cwydro]

89. And now, it turns out Smollett has hired Michael Cohen's attorney.

The plot thickens.

[madville]

90. CPD says they have new evidence from the two brothers

That triggered their release and are investigating the new information.

[cwydro]

91. Oh my.

Fascinating.

[cwydro]

92. I'm thinking this isn't going to end well for someone.

Though I’m doubtful about repercussions.

[madville]

94. Latest news is Smollett has retained a defense attorney

Michael Cohen's defense attorney to be exact.

[madville]

95. Chicago detectives are 'eager to speak to Jussie Smollett' after new information emerges

https://abcnews.go.com/US/information-jussie-smollett-investigation-change-story-police/story?id=61117628

Chicago police are "eager to speak to Jussie Smollett" after new information emerged following the interrogation of two persons of interest in the investigation into the alleged attack of the "Empire" star.

"We have been in touch with Smollett's attorneys," said Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told ABC News.

Early Saturday, after two men were released after being arrested and interrogated, police said they had new information that “could change the story entirely.”

[melman]

98. Police sources: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

[melman]

99. Brothers say Jussie Smollett paid them to participate in alleged attack, source says

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jussie-smollett-case-brothers-say-empire-actor-paid-them-to-participate-in-alleged-attack-source-says-2019-02-16/

[Beartracks]

101. That answers the proof question. Apparently there are receipts!

========

[catbyte]

102. Perhaps there are crickets because this story keeps changing and I don't know what to think.

I had posted an article about Smollet's non-cooperation with Chicago Police Department and was clobbered for it. I never said anything like "if he didn't have anything to hide, then why not cooperate?" but just noted that something about his story seemed "off." I'm as sensitive to racial attacks as anybody on this board. Growing up Ojibwe in northern lower Michigan, we were THE minority group. I've heard so many people refer to me, my friends, and family as "those dirty Indians" and that's one of the milder ones. I'm also the daughter of a cop and something just seems a little off about the whole incident. I'm reserving judgement in any case, because if the attack was legitimate, then the attackers need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If it turns out he staged this, then he needs help.

[greyl]

103. 'I showed the cops my call history, but didn't want to give them possession of my phone'

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2019, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

is not a quote from this story. If this were a true story, that quote probably would have been part of the initial reporting. Its absence was evidence for people to doubt Smollett's honesty.

Only minimally mitigating saving grace for Smollett now is that he apparently wasn't trying to involve the police at first, thus didn't directly make a false report to authorities, initially. Too bad he compounded the problem and ended up making many false statements to authorities, friends, and fans. Sad story all around.

[Tipperary]

135. Now it looks as though he is going before a grand jury.

He may have scuppered his career. The whole thing is astonishing.

[SaschaHM]

105. Regardless of how this turns out, civil liberties exist for a reason....

Always hire a lawyer. Always request to see a warrant. Always insist that everyone in the situation follows the law to the letter.

And in this case specifically, never forget the 2017 Obama DOJ report on the Chicago Police Department.

[EffieBlack]

106. You're absolutely right

However, that wasn't what I was getting at. I was questioning the double standards in how black men are treated when it comes to being accused of and reporting crimes.

In the Justin Fairfax case, I had in other threads questioned why his accuser had not filed a police report after she went public with her allegation - since the normal justifications for a rape victim not going to the police no longer applied once she publicly detailed the incident she alleged. I don't think it meant that she was lying and she could have a good reason not to involve the police, but it was certainly a factor I considered in trying to assess the credibility of her allegation. (I should note that, since I raised the question, I've seen some reports that she is willing to speak with the authorities in Massachusetts, so we'll see what happens).

In the wake of that, I was reminded of how quickly some people pointed to Jussie Smollett's reported "refusal to cooperate with the police" by virtue of his reluctance to hand over his cellphone as reason to call his credibility into question, but to immediately assume that he was lying about the attack. As you note, there are many reasons for a black man not to trust the police, especially in Chicago, but that didn't matter to many folk here.

[cwydro]

107. Perhaps another example might have served your case better.

This Smollett thing is not ending well. Your point has been lost in the reek rising from this stinking pile of hooey he tried to pull off.

The MAGAts will love this whole thing. All he has done is give the right ammunition. I hope he will wise up to how badly these hoaxes hurt those who are genuinely victims of hate crimes.

If he made this all up for publicity, he’s a pathetic loser of a person.

[EffieBlack]

115. Actually, this example proves my argument perfectly

[cwydro]

116. No. It doesn't.

But whatever works for you.

[EffieBlack]

119. You felt the need to devote considerable time and effort - and 20+ posts

trying to knock down an argument you claim proved your point, not mine.

A sure sign that my point was made and with stinging precision.

[EffieBlack]

124. "It takes me about 30 seconds to write a post"

That explains a lot.

[LisaL]

110. So I guess you are still arguing his credibility shouldn't be questioned? Despite the recent reports

suggesting that he might have orchestrated his own attack. I am confused.

[cwydro]

111. It is confusing, isn't it.

I see the case of Jussie Smollett being used elsewhere on DU to prove some point or another.

He’s a very poor example.

[LisaL]

112. If it should be used as an example, I would think that we shouldn't automatically believe

without any doubts, when someone claims to be a victim.

[cwydro]

114. Yes, I think the Smollett example has proved exactly the opposite point desired by those OPs.

Funny how things work out some times.

[EffieBlack]

117. It's clear the point was completely lost on you

It happens.

[cwydro]

123. If someone doesn't agree with you, then they miss the point?

Oh ok.

How do you feel about Smollett now? That story of his is crumbling fast.

[EffieBlack]

118. I'm not arguing that at all - never have

I'm saying that he shouldn't be assumed to be lying because he didn't want to turn his phone over because there are also rational reasons not to turn over his phone to the Chicago Police.

There's a difference between a factor weighing against his credibility and determining he has no credibility based on that factor.

[Inkfreak]

113. he lied.

[Demovictory9]

121. yep.

[cwydro]

122. He's made himself look stupid, if nothing else.

Amazing some here still defending him.

[MrGrieves]

126. So any thoughts on the damage this may do to credibility of future victims?

[EffieBlack]

127. Yes

Anyone who assumes a victim in the future is any less credible because a completely unrelated person may previously have made a false allegation in an altogether unrelated case probably wouldn't take that victim seriously under any circumstances and is just looking for an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.

[Tipperary]

131. Huh?

Dayum, I would hate to have to diagram that sentence.

[Vinnie From Indy]

128. This incident should be learning opportunity for everyone.

Stampeding in any direction based on accusations is always a fool's errand. I wish more Democrats would stop making pronouncements about issues like this without at least waiting for a few days to get a clearer picture of the situation.

[MrGrieves]

129. Agreed.

[Sneederbunk]

130. +1

[Power 2 the People]

132. +1