MovieChat Forums > Jussie Smollett Discussion > Another Innocent Black Man Found Guilty

Another Innocent Black Man Found Guilty


People are always quick to accuse a black man of criminality when they are innocent. Like the innocent Central Park teenagers and the innocent men accused of killing Malcolm X who went to prison for years. And scores of other innocent black men who are released after decades in prison once it's discovered they didn't do the crime.

There's nothing in the indictment pointing to any evidence of his guilt. Two homophobic brothers assaulted him and lied when they were caught to save themselves. Smollet's arrest and verdict were racially motivated.

reply

That's hilarious.

reply

Except this time the man is guilty. It does happen once in a while you know.

reply

No evidence.

reply

Poor trolling Keelai, Jussie is a bit played out wouldn’t you say? If you’re gonna troll at least be current and somewhat original with it.

reply

Obviously not since he's been trending for the past few days started by other MCers.

reply

[deleted]

Lol, if anybody still had any doubts about you being a troll...

reply

The irony is his railing against racially motivated accusations against black men while he makes up accusations against two black men

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I literally just scrolled down just to write this. Ugh.

reply

As you take down the two brothers with a leap that states conjecture as though it were fact.

All Smollett did was pave the way for more of the phenomenon you describe. All but a handful of his inner circle knew this and cut him loose. I feel sorry for his supportive siblings who have to look like fools b/c of this absurdly conceived stunt born of their brother's narcissism.

reply

The brothers homophobic tweets are evidence.

reply

For that matter there’s NO evidence that ANY of what he said actually happened.
That alone makes his statements very suspect. Add to that what the brothers have said, which IS evidence against Smollett, along with changed details of his story, indicates he lied.

reply

Evidence of what? Offensive tweets? How do we get from there to here...

...assaulted him and lied when they were caught to save themselves


Black guys proclaiming their innocence, but some just will never believe them. Shame on you for such an accusation without any evidence. Thank goodness the police believed these black guys were telling the truth.

Smollet's arrest and verdict were racially motivated.


What evidence do you have? I wonder if your horrible accusation against the brothers here is racially motivated?

reply

Zero evidence against Smollet. Two arrested attackers testifying against their victim in order to get charges dropped isn't evidence.

The tweets provide motive.

reply

What an odd expression of homophobia...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/smollett-testifies-he-had-sexual-relationship-with-brother-involved-in-alleged-hate-crime-hoax

reply

I'm greatly anticipating how MC's liar in chief will spin that!

reply

One brother testified to using homophobic slurs:

"Olabinjo Osundairo, 30, was questioned on past homophobic comments he made and admitted he used such derogatory terms toward men he “suspected” were gay.

The other brother testified that he went to a gay bathhouse with Smollet.

"On Wednesday, Abimbola had told jurors that he and Smollett had gone to the Steamworks bathhouse together in Chicago’s Boystown neighborhood, a predominantly gay community, and on Thursday, Allen asked if gay pornography was played on the televisions inside the spa.
“I don’t recall,” Abimbola said.
“You don’t recall seeing gay pornography? . . . You don’t remember masturbating with him?” Allen asked.
Abimbola said, “No.”"

Why would a straight guy go to a gay bathhouse with a gay guy? You're not this naive.

"Multiple Yelp reviews for the bathhouse indicate pornography is played at the spa, which is outfitted with numerous “glory holes” and “hook-up rooms.”"
https://nypost.com/2021/12/02/abimbola-osundairo-and-jussie-smollett-were-dating-prior-to-attack-defense/

reply

"The first issue was his decision to withhold cell phone, medical, and DNA evidence from police."

"Mr. Smollett didn't want the crime solved," Webb told jurors. "He wanted the media exposure but he didn't want the brothers apprehended."

"The final aspect of the case Webb emphasized to jurors was a February 2019 police interview, weeks after the alleged hate crime took place, and a text to Bola Osundairo. Webb pointed out Smollett did not sign the criminal complaints laying out the Osundairo brothers were the ones who carried out this alleged crime."

"Smollett claimed he didn't sign, despite initially saying he would, under advice of his legal team. But Webb then called up a text message Smollett sent that day to Bola Osundairo beginning, "Brother I love you, I stand with you, I know you did nothing wrong.""

You agree to sign the complaint against your attackers, but instead you text them your support? Why stand up for your attackers? Sign the criminal complaint like you said you would -- or are you afraid of what they'll reveal if you do? He never cared about finding these supposed culprits, and when they did, he wouldn't sign the complaint -- and he made sure they knew he wouldn't. Talk about naive. This is almost as ridiculous as thinking these people would conveniently run into each other outside that frigid night.

reply

Your article is extremely biased and omitted important information which would've presented a fair report.

"An internal investigation was started because of the police leaks. The FBI refuted lies made by the police which the police never corrected publicly. The Chicago police's dishonesty doesn't instill confidence."

Why were the police lying about the case and attempting to prejudice the public?

"The police chief later admitted that the men made no mention of a hoax until the final hour that they could legally be held.
By this time, Jussie had already refused to sign a complaint against the Osundarios, convinced that these men, one who he had considered a friend and the other an acquaintance, could not be his attackers. Most importantly, detectives refused to show Jussie video, photos, or any evidence to prove they were the attackers. The fact that these two brothers, who in the final hour confessed to attacking my brother yet say it was Jussie who told them to, is all the evidence that the police and the general public needed to be convinced, should be frightening to everyone."

Also:
"under advice of his legal team"
Why did his legal counsel tell him not to sign?

Smollet didn't want to report the crime. He was talked into it.

Smollet was talking/texting to different people during that night including his music manager. Smollet could've told his boyfriend he was hungry and going out for a bite to eat.

Restaurants are open at 2am because people go to them.

There was a woman eyewitness who described one of the brothers with the rope as white. Smollet wasn't the only one who made that mistake.

It also sounds odd that Smollet would agree to have anyone hit him in the face. As an actor, his face is his livelihood.

Police report:
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/30/728356084/chicago-police-roll-out-hundreds-of-pages-of-records-in-jussie-smollett-case

Reasonable doubt. His word against his attackers' word. Not enough evidence.

reply

"Smollet could've told his boyfriend he was hungry and going out for a bite to eat."

What evidence do you have? Or is it more conjecture? That's why you should turn over your phone to police. In case it was someone you knew. But alas, none of that is on the record. You'd think Jussie would be screaming about how said he told his boyfriend he was going out to get something to eat, but he isn't. And why would a celeb do that alone at 2am in Chicago on freezing night? You're on Empire. Order in.

So, it's not about going out a 2am to get something to eat. It's about 2 brothers preparing and going out that night, at that time, that just so happens to be the time Jussie does. I guess if Jussie wasn't hungry, they'd be walking in frigid temps at 2 am, at that spot, with a noose saying "Darn! We didn't run into him despite preparing like we knew we would!"

You seem very biased against these black brothers. Making claims of fact against them that are nothing more than your conjecture. Further, you make a claim that his arrest and conviction were racially motivated without providing a shred of evidence.

It's hard to believe Jussie when his story changed during a tv interview.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/jussie-smollett-changes-his-story-again/

He was hit below the eye and the rib (which he lied about being broken when it was only bruised) The perfect spot to show something happened, but not nearly the beating that TWO bodybuilder trainers could inflict against one diminutive actor who wasn't in shape enough not to need said trainers to prep for a video. Either one of those two could've drop kicked Jussie back to his apartment. But "fighter" Jussie somehow held BOTH off with only a mouse under his eye and a noose around his neck to show for it. Talk about naive.

Hear that? That's the deafening silence from nearly all those who initially came running to support him. This charlatan did irreparable damage, born of his own selfish lust for relevance. When the next real case pops up, what will happen? "That's what they said about Jussie Smollett, but it turned out to be a lie!" I can make an excuse for his siblings, but not for you. Shame on you, Keelai. Shame on you.

reply

Let's discuss only the facts.
1. There is a video of the two brothers buying items linked to the attack. Nothing in this video links Smollet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOjh9ali_vs

2. 2 brothers and Smollet before attack. Smollet isn't wearing a coat. Only a heavy sweater. "Freezing" is relative. We know that Smollet was attacked outside his building. The attackers were the 2 brothers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ljEoTO_CEk

3. The brothers said Smollet paid them a $3500 check for the attack. Smollet said the check was for training for a new music video.
a. The check's memo line reads, "5 week Nutrition/Workout program (Don't Go)."
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/jussie-check-ht-ml-190225_hpEmbed_1x1_992.jpg
b. There are numerous texts between Smollet and his trainer asking about nutrition:
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/jan-20-texts-jussie-ht-ml-190225_hpEmbed_9x16_992.jpg
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/music-video-texts-jussie-ht-ml-190225_hpEmbed_9x16_992.jpg
And asking about exercise:
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/travelingcardio-texts-jussie-ht-ml-190225_hpEmbed_9x16_992.jpg
This evidence supports Smollet's version.

4. Smollet did say one of the attackers was white. But so did a female eyewitness so they both made the same mistake. Both men had their faces covered and wore gloves. I already linked the police report. Add that the men were screaming racist and gay epithets. This also supports Smollet's version in which he believed he was attacked by white men.

5. Police were prejudiced against Smollet. "Smollett paid $3,500 to stage this attack..." The check and text support Smollet's version re:training so why would the police discount that? Also, the police were leaking information.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-police-smollett/chicago-police-investigating-leaks-in-empire-actor-case-idUSKCN1QP1KD

6. I already linked testimony re: one brother accompanying Smollet to a gay bathhouse. You do know why men go them, right?

I don't see any evidence incriminating Smollet. You're basically incriminating him based on your personal opinion - not evidence. Maybe you're comfortable giving your phone to strangers but, not everyone would be. I know I wouldn't since I have my bank accounts on mine. Smollet gave his phone after he deleted private and sensitive info. You may not go out for a sandwich, but like I said, those restaurants are open because people do go out for sandwiches late at night.

You have to look at evidence. Not opinion.

You're criticizing me for not being part of your lynch mob. Thanks. I've been asking for concrete evidence since this started. I'm still waiting.

reply

I see you don't mention all the horrible things you've said in the past any longer, about the brothers, and about the reason behind his arrest and conviction that you somehow know to be true. What happened to defending all those assertions with evidence? You can't, b/c you don't have any.

Another Innocent Black Man Found Guilty.


Opinion stated as fact.

There's nothing in the indictment pointing to any evidence of his guilt.


Two homophobic brothers assaulted him and lied when they were caught to save themselves.


You throw out the testimony of the brothers. How? No reason. You just don't like them or their damning testimony, so you call them liars. That's just personal bias.

Smollet's arrest and verdict were racially motivated.


More opinion stated as fact.

You've done exactly what you decry. You stated your conjecture and opinion as fact from the start. There's nothing here except peddling a false equivalence to those other cases. You jump to the next thing again and again b/c you can't answer to what was put forth. To the extent that you continue, you're an accomplice to his disgusting attempt to cash in on our divided nation for his own personal gain. Shame on you, Keelai.

reply

You're forgetting that it's the prosecution which needs to present evidence that proves Smollet is guilty. Not Smollet must prove he's innocent.

I would like YOU to present FACTUAL evidence which has YOU convinced he's guilty. You should also address the lack of strong evidence which I cited in my last post.

In the meantime, I don't have a problem answering your questions.

1. Testimony from his two attackers is weak and extremely questionable especially when their assault charges were dropped in exchange for speaking against Smollet. You must understand how that deal would encourage them to lie

"Another Innocent Black Man Found Guilty."

"Black men make up 47 percent of exonerations while only accounting for 13 percent of the US population, per the Equal Justice Initiative."
https://www.theroot.com/black-man-spent-27-years-in-prison-for-murder-he-didn-t-1849014581

"The criminal justice system’s pervasive problems with racism start before the first contact and continue through pleas, conviction, incarceration, release, and beyond.

The net effects of history’s injustices are staggering. According to statistics the NAACP examined, although Black people make up 13.4 percent of the population, they make up:

22 percent of fatal police shootings,
47 percent of wrongful conviction exonerations, and
35 percent of individuals executed by the death penalty."
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/after-the-bar/public-service/racial-disparities-criminal-justice-how-lawyers-can-help/

"Despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than blacks do, blacks are incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites."
https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice

"How Racism in the Courtroom Produces Wrongful Convictions and Mass Incarceration"
https://www.naacpldf.org/judicial-process-failures/

reply

"1. Testimony from his two attackers is weak and extremely questionable especially when their assault charges were dropped in exchange for speaking against Smollet. You must understand how that deal would encourage them to lie."

You replied, but you didn't answer with anything other than restating your opinion. "weak" "extremely questionable" is your label, but that doesn't make it so.

You want "questionable"? How did he fight off TWO hulking trainers who went there with the express purpose of attacking him? Two skinny 13 yr olds trying to mug him would've inflicted more damage if he didn't turn over his wallet and jewelry, but these TWO only muster a mouse under his eye and a bruised rib when they went there to assault him?? Absurd.

You want to know another thing to "encourage" someone to lie? Trying to save your ass from jail, humiliation, etc, after getting caught in a hoax. He can't admit it. He went too far to turn back. The irony of trying to loop Trump into his scheme is that he's the same type of narcissist, who uses the same tactics. Never admit anything. Always double down.

And what's with the stats? We're talking about Jussie, he's "Another innocent black man" -- but you affixing that label and reaching a conclusion in this particular case doesn't make it fact.

reply

You're only presenting your biased opinion and made-up stories based on it. I presented physical evidence like the check and text proving that Smollet was telling the truth. More evidence that the brothers are on store video buying items related to the attack as well as a video of the brothers walking around before the attack. Evidence that a woman also thought the brother was white so the error is credible.

I purposely and specifically mentioned only the Smollet case. YOU are the one who asked to broaden the case by bringing up black men and the criminal judicial system.

You still haven't presented any evidence. Your assuming that you know Smollet's thoughts! That's not evidence. A text before the attack from Smollet to the brothers telling them where to meet him would be excellent.

I also linked the indictment. Can you point out any concrete evidence? I haven't been able to find any when I read it. Did you read it?

Where is your factual evidence that Smollet is guilty?

reply

I'm doing what you're doing. You have a take. So you spin everything to fit that narrative. No one is writing "For Hoax at 2am" on a check. Preparing for the attack could easily preparing for "staged" attack. You don't need a text if you planned earlier by some other means. See? I can say stuff too, and it's just as plausible. Have you presented anything to defend the absurdity of him fighting off two monsters? No, not a word, b/c even you can't spin that into something else. You say the brothers are liars. How convenient! Evidence? None. But if they're telling the truth? You've got a problem. Jussie changed his story. Liar then? Why would a real victim in a case like this be slippery about a single thing? Even Foxx said he lied to police. What does that do to his credibility? Damage it, perhaps? You're just stating your beliefs as though irrefutable facts. Your story is just that, a story as to who did what, when, how, why. The prosecution did that too. You don't need a smoking gun. You're just pretending that 2/3 of the schemers testifying doesn't count for some bizarre reason, which really means that you don't like it. Too bad. Getting someone to flip is huge. They testified under oath. You need more than a claim that they lied, but you don't have more, and neither did his defense.

reply

You presented zero evidence, again.

The check, text, videos, attacks and homophobia text and admitted testimony are all physical evidence which supports Smollet. Two articles support Smollet's testimony that one brother went to a gay bathhouse with him which wasn't denied. One brother was also found guilty for attempted murder. That makes him shady.

reply

Again, question begging. "Attack" is exactly what is being debated. It's not evidence of anything that couldn't support the idea of a staged attack aka hoax. And you talk out of both sides of your mouth with the homophobia. He's making out with him but hates him b/c he's gay so he'll assault him later? The former could be motivation for assisting his lover in a scheme. See? It's easy. Jussie's changing stories, changing injuries, reluctance to aid police in finding his perpetrators, all support his guilt. Slippery guy, and he did it on camera for the world to see. See? It's easy. The testimony from the brothers is damning. Saying "They lied!" is meaningless. Proof? Nada.

reply

68-page order. On page 13, it says that Smollet didn't need to plead guilty nor admit guilt, pay 10% of police overtime and do 15-hours community service unrelated to charges.

White men second guessed a prosecutor who happens to be a black woman which sounds very racist. Racist death threats she received, also. Same white men had 50 subpoenas, 43 interviews and 26,000 documents investigating HER because he received a lighter sentence they didn't like.

How much taxpayer money did this investigation of the former prosecutor costs?

How dare a black man accuse white people of beating him up and it turns out they were black!!!!!!! The above overreaction sounds like historical white vengeance against black black people.

The FBI was also investigating this case. What happened to that since it started in 2019. it can't still be ongoing.

Page 51 discusses the police leaks. 56 is interesting. Smollet never said he had a fractured rib. That was a lie created from the police leak!!!! There are many false media reports about the incident discussed in the following pages.
file:///C:/Users/kaah/Desktop/122021-wls-smollett-report.pdf

Again, no specific evidence named after I read all 68-pages.

reply

Keelai:

Black males 15-29 make up 3% of NYC's population, yet commit 68.5% of all violent crime.

Nearly 50 percent of black students drop out of high school

Only 30 percent of black youngsters reside in two-parent families.

In 2005, while 13 percent of the population, blacks committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims.

Black children represent 18% of school enrollment but 50% of students with multiple suspensions are black.

I think a lot of the problems start with no father at home to provide discipline and fear. Then there's this cultural feeling that being smart is not cool. Talking ebonics and pants hanging off your ass ain't be helping y'all to get no job neitha. No respect for da Po-Leece cause they ain't never been tot respect. Result = Crime.

reply

"Result = Crime"

The problem started centuries ago with slavery. Continued with brutal violence and lynchings against blacks along with Jim Crow legislation which locked blacks into inferior schools, low-paying jobs, substandard segregated housing, fewer services and strong influx of drugs and guns from outside their community.

Latest 1970 government policy of mass incarceration started in which arrests of black men at 20-50x higher rate in comparison to white men for the same exact crime in some states. 1,000% increase of incarceration in 30 years even though crime was trending down.

1960s Civil Rights legislation made it illegal to discriminate against race. Not permissible to use race, but permissible to use "criminal label" to discriminate. Now millions of black men cannot vote, discriminated in housing, employment, education, public benefits, credit, student financial aid and exclusion from jury duty because they are labeled "criminal". New Jim Crow! New discrimination locks black men into poverty similar to old Jim Crow. Majority of arrests and incarceration are nonviolent - 95%.

Government shifted billions from education, public housing, social programs, drug treatment to new prisons even though crime was trending downward!

"Black and Latino students are consistently punished more severely than white students for the same infractions."

"Students with disabilities, who represent only 12 percent of the public school population, account for almost 60 percent of students who are placed in seclusion."

Zero-tolerance policies began initially as a response to major infractions, such as possession of a weapon on school grounds or assault against a student or school employee. However, over the years, zero-tolerance policies have expanded to include less severe infractions, and as a result, the number of mandatory suspensions and expulsions has skyrocketed.

Children who are suspended or expelled are much more likely to fall behind on schoolwork, be suspended again, be required to repeat a grade, or drop out of school altogether. Furthermore, students who are not in school may also use their abundance of “downtime” to engage in further negative behaviors and acts of delinquency, such as drug or alcohol use. Additional criticism of zero-tolerance policies is that they don’t teach corrective behaviors – students are simply punished swiftly and sent off school grounds to fend for themselves. But perhaps most troubling is the association between school discipline and incidence of incarceration, a link that Attorney General Eric Holder calls a “school-to-prison pipeline.”
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/students-of-color-disproportionately-disciplined-in-schools

reply

"There's nothing in the indictment pointing to any evidence of his guilt."

This is the indictment. I complained 4 years ago that I couldn't find any evidence. Furthermore, they repeated the same exact charges which gave the false impression that Smollet was being charged with many charges when he wasn't. To me, that's prejudicial behavior on the part of the DA. Find concrete evidence in this indictment - not conjecture - and we can discuss.
https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/2019/030819-wls-smollett-indictment-doc.pdf

"Two homophobic brothers assaulted him and lied when they were caught to save themselves."
I already linked to their homophobic slurs - both verbal and texts - and one of them already admitted to using them during testimony. Therefore, their homophobia is factual.

The lying I already addressed in my previous post. Also, the brothers never mentioned it being Smollet's idea until very late in police questioning. Why? I linked to those already.

"You throw out the testimony of the brothers."
They physically assaulted Smollet. Smollet was the one attacked. There is no doubt in what physically happened. The rest is conflicting verbal testimony from two opposing parties which can't be proven nor disproved without supporting concrete evidence. The little evidence presented like the check and texts support Smollet's version. Why do you support his attackers?

"Smollet's arrest and verdict were racially motivated."

It's obvious there are white people who are upset that he accused white men for a racist attack. It hasn't been publicized that a white woman made the same error. The reaction in social media, police, DA, news media, politicians, etc. has been a lynch mob campaign against Smollet and the original prosecutor for not harshly punishing him. She was fired.

"Writing in the Chicago Sun Times, Foxx – who was heavily criticized for perceptions that she went easy on Smollett in he handling of his case — said the court proceedings at his Thursday sentencing amounted to “mob justice” and a politically motivated “kangaroo prosecution.”

Thursday’s Smollett sentencing and fine came as a result of a special prosecutor reigniting the case after outcries at the light penalties Smollett faced for his disproven claims of a racial attack on him."
https://deadline.com/2022/03/jussie-smollett-faced-kangaroo-prosecution-says-cook-county-states-attorney-kim-foxx-1234976689/

reply

"Therefore, their homophobia is factual."

You left out the romantic involvement again. If homophobia somehow leads to romance as well, then your motive has been severely diluted. I can't decide whether to kiss you or beat you. That's brilliant.

"The lying I already addressed in my previous post."

I asked for evidence, not replying with more assertions that just restate the first.

"They physically assaulted Smollet. Smollet was the one attacked. "

B/c it was staged. You keep begging the question. An attack isn't a real attack, when you've willfully planned and conspired to make it happen. I can't say, "Keelai, hit me here, but not too hard. They need to see something to make it look convincing." then have you arrested for assaulting me.

"It's obvious there are white people.."

I asked for evidence, you just provide speculation. You seem strangely blind to that idea when defending your assertions, but you suddenly can see again when you want to wave off stuff against Jussie.

reply

You haven't presented any factual evidence, Marty. Why are you so convinced? I'm going to assume you have none.

I've been asking for 4 years and I'm still waiting:
https://moviechat.org/nm0810620/Jussie-Smollett/5cbce14a0e45e31e6aea7961/What-if-Jussie-is-telling-the-truth

reply

You overstepped from the jump. You puffed out your chest with your OP and went beyond anything you had evidence for. You lumped in your conjecture with the rest as though it were fact to give it weight it doesn't deserve without that evidence. You make leaps against the brothers, etc, but you pretend that only those who accuse Jussie are making leaps. You connected this case to others without anything to support it beyond a declaration, "Another innocent black man..."

reply

Again, you present zero evidence to show Smollet is guilty.

reply

And you present nothing that supports your OP, which is where this began. You came in hot, but like Jussie, you didn't have your ducks in a row. But in the process, you reveal that evidence doesn't matter so much when you make YOUR assertions, that, in the final analysis, are just opinions born of a bias against the verdict, the brothers, and anything that doesn't support the idea that he's "Another innocent black man..." to squeeze into the other examples you mention.

reply

Proof of guilt has to be presented. You have none. You have not presented why YOU believe he's guilty based on factual evidence. Because the media said so or because it's on twitter are not proof. Follow other opinions, that makes you part of a lynch mob.

I presented factual evidence for my position. The physical evidence supporting Smollet's version, the lack of factual evidence showing his guilt and the overzealous reaction of the news media, police, white prosecutor named because a black prosecutor didn't give him a harsher sentence which is typically given to black people vs white people in the criminal judicial system. I provided links.

Like Mr. Henry Ford's Juror #8 in "12 Angry Men", I am looking for facts. Not implicit bias.

reply

"a black prosecutor didn't give him a harsher sentence "

A harsher sentence for what, pray tell?? Any sentence, harsh or light, for his innocence or his GUILT?? You turn away from anything doesn't support your narrative. Your bias is everywhere, yet you accuse everyone else of the same.

reply

Where's your factual evidence of guilt?

reply

More attacks on the original prosecutor. You can see how it's political bias, too:

"Foxx additionally faced criticism from the Chicago Police, who maintained that Smollett had fabricated the event. Additionally, the Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago's police union, called for Foxx to step down from her post.

In the aftermath of the verdicts against Smollett, people took to social media to criticize the quickness with which Foxx had dropped charges against him in 2019, as well as her handling of the case overall.

Commentator Dinesh D'Souza called Foxx "complicit in the attempt to cover up Jussie's hate crime, even if they weren't charged and found guilty for it."

D'Souza also expressed anger that Foxx had reportedly been coerced into dropping Smollett's original charges by former first lady Michelle Obama. Both Foxx, as well as Smollett, have been claimed to have relationships with the Obamas.

D'Souza was one of a number of conservative voices who called for Foxx to face punishment.

Ross Kaminsky, a Colorado-based radio host, also expressed his wish that Foxx be prosecuted.

"And I also hope Smollett gets an extra 6 months for perjury," Kaminsky added.

Further calls on social media urged Foxx to resign from her position, a sentiment that was also echoed in 2019 when she dropped Smollett's charges. Despite the controversy, she was re-elected to her position in 2020.

"While this case has garnered a lot of attention, we hope as a county we can move forward. At the Cook County State's Attorney's Office we will continue to focus on the important work of this office, prioritizing and prosecuting violent crime," the state attorney's office continued."
https://www.newsweek.com/jussie-smollett-verdict-disaster-kim-foxx-prosecutor-who-let-him-off-hook-1658032

That last comment is important. All this focus on Smollet instead of violent crime.

Your last post had zero evidence from you. Convince me that he's guilty with concrete evidence. Is there a tweet from Smollet to the brothers stating where he should be attacked?

reply

More of the same, but I'm glad you keep mentioning Foxx.

This is what, Foxx, a black state's attorney, who strongly favors reform, who is on the right side of everything you put forth regarding blacks and the legal system, said...

"Foxx said the $10,000 Smollett forfeited is the maximum amount of restitution a person can pay. She said that the money, along with his community service, was a “measure of holding him accountable.”

“I cannot offer him the opportunity to forfeit his bond and have the conditions that we offered if I did not believe he was guilty,” she said. “I have an ethical obligation if I believe someone is not guilty, I have to drop the charges without conditions.

She cited Smollett’s Class 4 felony charges as reason why her officer proceeded with an “alternative prosecution.”

Restitution?? Accountability?? GUILTY?? For what?? Was she "racially motivated" against him as well? Interesting how all parties felt the same way. The difference was ONLY in the punishment. And Jussie "I AM INNOCENT!!" Smollett took the deal and forfeited the $10K?? His reputation, his innocence, all on the line, but he accepts these terms?? Why didn't he put up his fist and shout "NO!" and refuse based on the innocence that he later professed in court? She gave him a shady, easy out, and he took it. But this egotistical buffoon thought he could have his cake and eat it too once these charges were dropped, so he got in front of a mic and just kept blabbing. Very Trump-esque. Pay the toll for what you did, but pretend like you won.

“Based on the nature of the offense and his background, this was a just outcome,” she said. “Justice takes many forms.”

What "offense"?? "Justice" for what, Keelai? His innocence??

reply

I provide links for you.
Provide a link.

reply

Gee, you come off like you're an expert on all this, but you don't remember? Even I remember her quip "I don't care about celebrity hoaxes."

https://wgntv.com/news/kim-foxx-denies-smollett-received-special-treatment/

reply

“Some people don’t plead guilty and are still afforded these opportunities,” Foxx said."

You assumed he pled guilty when that's not what the article says. Again, you're pretending to know what Smollet thinks. I only want concrete evidence, not fantasy.

Once again, what evidence shows he's guilty? There's nothing stated in the article.

reply

No, he didn't plead guilty. You're not reading what you just posted. She's saying that it wasn't a requirement, not that he isn't necessarily guilty. Hence the shady part she was deservedly criticized for. That's what "alternative prosecution" means. 10K, community service = easy out, but punishment FOR WHAT HE DID nonetheless.

You asked me for the link b/c you obviously didn't know any of this. I didn't write more than I did nor claim that evidence was presented in the article. You asked, I gave.

But see all those "??" I posted above. You didnt answer one.

Was she "racially motivated" against Jussie too?

What offense is she talking about?

Why the need for restitution?

What is she holding him accountable for?

Why did he forfeit 10K if he is "INNOCENT!"

She knew the facts of the case much better than either of us, so how could she reach a conclusion that you can't seem to fathom? She gave him a slap on the wrist. They came down harder on him. But both knew it was a hoax -- the white "lynch mob" and the black attorney who is all about reform. It's bad when the latter doesn't support your innocence when you know she'd love to.

I know this is your shtick, but you've reached a new low here. Even Rev Al doesn't touch this one any longer. Jussie undermined the very thing that you pretend to support. Now no one will believe the next real case, all b/c Jussie wanted to be the Gay Tupac. A selfish scheme born of delusions of grandeur. It was all about Jussie, and it still is. Stereotypical criminal caper: a guy who thinks he's smart gets two idiots to buy into his master plan for a few bucks, but he's too dumb himself to have thought it through. Awful for those close to him. Punchline forever now.

Shame on you, Keelai.
Shame!
Shame!!
SHAME!!!

reply

Your factual evidence of his guilt? Just admit there is none and we can call it a night.
Btw, your comment about guilt contradicts the 68-page order that I linked.

reply

No, it doesn't. That's your opinion. And, of course, you didn't answer my questions. You liked to talk about Foxx, and her "lynch mob" "politically motivated" comments, but when she says anything against Jussie, you clam up (and thus showing your tunnel vision bias), just like you did regarding his changing story (which means he's a shady liar), just like you did when I ask how he fought off this "attack" by two swole trainers, just like you did when I asked for evidence that the brothers lied, just like you did when I asked for evidence that his arrest and conviction were racially motivated (yet you ignore that Foxx thought him guilty as well). You just have bluster, and personal bias against the brothers, but you can't throw out star witness testimony just b/c it reveals a hoax that you want to dismiss as false. Your objection is nothing more than the opinion of an armchair defense attorney who's hoping for a OJ-esque miscarriage of justice to overturn actual justice. But there is no mob protesting for Jussie's innocence, b/c they know it's NOT like those other cases you mention. They went home b/c they know what you, I, and everyone else knows: He did it.

reply

You have zero factual evidence that he's guilty.

reply

And it's interesting that your links don't even mention these things she said early on.

reply

They do. Where's YOUR evidence? I'm still waiting.

reply

No, they didnt. That's why you asked for a link. You asked b/c I quoted something you didn't show. You wanted proof b/c it wasn't in your link!

reply

Where's YOUR evidence? I'm still waiting.

reply

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-foxx-texts-states-attorney-calls-jussie-smollett-washed-up-celeb-who-lied-to-cops-in-texts/

https://twitter.com/CharlieDeMar/status/1118296347256422400/photo/2

That's what Kim Foxx thinks of Jussie and his story.

reply

It's irrelevant. Where is the factual evidence?

Btw, Kim Foxx said it was a kangeroo prosecution:
https://deadline.com/2022/03/jussie-smollett-faced-kangaroo-prosecution-says-cook-county-states-attorney-kim-foxx-1234976689/

Also:
"One of Smollett’s attorneys, Shay Allen, said he agreed with Foxx’s assessment that the prosecution was politically motivated as he read the op-ed in the courthouse lobby Thursday.

"The impetus was second-guessing the prosecutor — a progressive, Black prosecutor — and to say ‘this old white man can do a better job than you,’ "Allen said. "And Jussie was caught in the crossfire."
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/kim-foxx-under-fire-for-saying-jussie-smollett-faced-kangaroo-prosecution

Foxx already said even if he were guilty, these type of cases don't have jail time. News said same before the verdict. It's a lynch mob mentality. How come Foxx is receiving death threats?
https://chicagojustice.org/2021/09/16/chicago-twitter-hates-kim-foxx-and-facts/
https://www.tmz.com/2019/04/24/kim-foxx-security-bodyguards-death-threats-jussie-smollet/
https://www.yahoo.com/video/lori-lightfoot-kim-foxx-receive-212742964.html

"After an emergency court appearance, all charges against Jussie Smollett are dropped.
In a statement, his lawyer says: "He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator."
They add that his record "has been wiped clean."

"STATEMENT FROM 20TH CENTURY FOX TELEVISION AND FOX ENTERTAINMENT: “Jussie Smollett has always maintained his innocence and we are gratified that all charges against him have been dismissed.”"

"Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
.@JussieSmollett
- what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA
11:09 AM · Feb 21, 2019"

reply

Lots of words but you didn't really provide anything important. Of course she thinks it's politically motivated. She's at war with them. You could easily say her decision to slap his wrist in that way was politically motivated.

But again, BOTH of these opposing forces thought it was a hoax. The difference is only in the level of punishment. State's Attorney, Kim Foxx disagrees with you. She's not a racist, white lynch mob. She's the opposite, but she shares the view that he's guilty. She hates the time, but NEVER denied the crime.

reply

I don't need to prove anything. Factual evidence needs to be presented before you condemn a man which you can't do. You're condemning someone based on opinion. That's sad.

I hope you never sit on a jury.

reply

"You're condemning someone based on opinion."

Says the person who wrote this...

"Two homophobic brothers assaulted him and lied when they were caught to save themselves. Smollet's arrest and verdict were racially motivated."

I don't have to hope you don't sit on a jury, b/c you could NEVER sit on a jury if you answered honestly. If they had your posting history here, you'd be tossed out of the pool immediately.

But you're right, you don't have to prove a thing. But no one has to buy what you're trying to sell as fact without proof. It's just an opinion, not a revelation born of any evidence. What I quoted from you carries absolutely no weight. And you just defended conjecture with more conjecture. Just stirring up when there's nothing new to report in fact. There's a huge gap between "I think he's innocent" and saying "Another innocent black man" or "I think the brothers lied" and "they lied when they were caught" The former reveals opinion, while the latter versions suggest a factual certainty you just don't have. All icing, no cake.

Shame on you, Keelai. I only entered this to dismantle your statements in front of an audience. Most know your shtick, but to pick this as your latest subject of bias was too much to pass by, in case newbies were reading. Wrong hill to die on, but I had to kill you dead. I hope you learned your lesson for defending this washed up actor who lied to police. Guilty as charged, ask Kim Foxx.

reply

you're getting trolled

reply

I know Keelai all too well. If you read every word of my replies, you'd understand what I'm doing.

reply

You still haven't presented any factual evidence. Only your biased opinion.

reply

Finally, you have admitted what I've said from the beginning. Your belief is based on your opinion - not any evidence.

I hope you never sit on a jury.

reply

Lying, leftist filth defending lying, leftists filth. What a surprise.

reply

Be nice.

reply

He is guilty. Like really, really guilty.

reply

His appeal begins soon, and you know what that means, back to jail for this pathetic excuse for a human being.

reply

He should be back in jail. Though it was very good they let him out in the meantime because his sentence was shorter than the time the appeal has taken. If he DOES win the appeal it would have been a great injustice if he already served the time.

reply

I see your point, but consider this, outside of Jussie Smollett, have you ever once heard of someone’s jail or prison sentence being postponed because that person appeals or plans on appealing the court ruling.
I’m sure there are outliers one could Google, but off the top of your head?
I’m not arguing the relevance of justice as it applies to this, I’m saying that the ONLY reason Jussie was released from jail was because of his privilege, privilege which leveraged his being a black/gay celebrity, and that in my opinion is a shameful thing.

reply

Off the top of my head another recent example is Steve Bannon. He worked for Trump in the 2016 campaign and for about a year in the White House. He was convicted for Contempt of Congress and sentenced to 4 months in prison but the judge allowed him to remain free pending appeal.

reply

https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2017/01/release-imprisonment-pending-appeal/
Found this, interesting bit of clarification if you’re interested and it does seem that Jussie loosely qualifies.

reply

Obviously, he's a candidate for release pending appeal according to your own link.

reply

Concrete evidence?

reply

Yes, I think so. I would have voted for conviction and normally Im super skeptical of police and prosecutors.

reply

Based on what evidence?

reply

Did you watch the trial keelai, the evidence was irrefutably concrete.

reply

There was no televised trial!

How did you watch something that doesn't exist?

reply

Excuse me, follow the trial, it was detailed to the public through media correspondents on a daily basis and practically had 24/7 coverage.
Journalists were barred from jury selection due to Covid but a few, I believe at least two, possibly from the Chicago Tribune or another local Chicago based media circuit were allowed to sit in and report throughout the entirety of the trial.

reply

Watching the trial and listening to biased reporting from the media are not the same thing!

The news media repeatedly slants news and destroys innocent people's lives. The "perp walk" is an example of this. Walk a handcuffed suspect before news cameras so they look guilty. It's an American practice which I saw being condemned by foreigners.

The trial was never televised!

"evidence was irrefutably concrete"

Please name this! I've been asking for the past 4 years.

reply

It’s not my job to do your homework for you. Put your thinking cap on and do some research. I think you’ll be surprised with what you come up with.

reply

"evidence was irrefutably concrete"

You lied! There is none which I have repeatedly written.

reply

Are you one of the Jussie Smollet siblings, if you are you have to tell
me😉

reply

Which parts of the Wikipedia article are inaccurate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussie_Smollett_hate_crime_hoax#Investigation

reply

The article is biased and prejudicial against Smollet. For instance:

" American actor Jussie Smollett approached the Chicago Police Department and reported a hate crime that he had staged earlier that morning."

Smollet has maintained that he never staged it. That sentence is inaccurate, also. Smollet didn't approach the CPD. They came to his apartment. I only read the first sentence and half of the second and already found numerous problems. The second sentence is also biased and prejudicial.

I won't read any further since I'm already annoyed by the 1 1/2 sentence I read.

reply

So about 1% of the entire article then. Thanks.

reply

I' have no interest in being part of your lynch mob.

The police and news media vilified the Central Park Five from the start by saying they were guilty and then vilified young black men in general by making up nonsense like "wilding". The Central Park teenagers were all innocent. I've seen it repeated with many others. Innocent men are repeatedly released after serving 20+ years. Imagine your life being ruined.

"Hawaii man released after 20 years in prison
Albert “Ian” Schweitzer was convicted of a rape, murder that new evidence shows he did not commit"
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/25/hawaii-man-released-after-20-years-in-prison/

"Staten Island man served 23 years in prison for murder he did not commit."
https://www.silive.com/crime-safety/2022/05/city-settles-staten-island-wrongful-conviction-lawsuit-for-7-million-da-key-in-securing-freedom-for-grant-williams.html

His first day out of jail after 40 years
https://fortunesociety.org/media_center/his-first-day-out-of-jail-after-40-years-adjusting-to-life-outside/

"Clarence Aaron was a 23-year-old college student from Mobile, Alabama, with no criminal record. In 1992, he introduced a classmate whose brother was a drug supplier to a cocaine dealer he knew from high school. He was subsequently present for the sale of nine kilograms of cocaine and was paid $1,500 by the dealer. After police arrested the group, the others testified against Aaron, describing him as a major dealer, which led to his being sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment..."
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/39/a-20-year-maximum-for-prison-sentences/
The others are encouraged to lie for a lighter sentence. That's the worse type of "evidence".

Use critical thinking skills! An article will say "evidence shows", but not name any of it. Then, people will repeat that there is evidence when it was never named. Don't allow yourself to be so easily manipulated by the news media and others with an agenda.

reply

I'm not a lynch mob. I'm asking you to support your claim. I present an article with claims that may be true or false. But you fold like a lawn chair instead of taking a stand. That is why your claims will be irrelevant.

reply

You linked to a bias and inaccurate article.

Take a stand about what? I only asked where is the concrete evidence? I've been asking the same question for four years.

reply