MovieChat Forums > Jussie Smollett Discussion > They Thought Richard Jewell Was Guilty, ...

They Thought Richard Jewell Was Guilty, Too.

posted 2 years ago by Keelai (34853)
46 replies | jump to latest

I knew Jewell was completely innocent while the FBI suspected him and both the media and public vilified him.

The dialect spoken by the bomber and Jewell was different. I had the impression the bomber was not a local.

"Early news reports lauded Jewell as a hero for helping to evacuate the area after he spotted the suspicious package. Three days later, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution revealed that the FBI was treating him as a possible suspect, based largely on a "lone bomber" criminal profile. For the next several weeks, the news media focused aggressively on him as the presumed culprit, labeling him a "person of interest". The media, to varying degrees, portrayed Jewell as a failed law enforcement officer who might have planted the bomb so he could "find" it and be a hero.

The New York Times reported in October 1996, when he was cleared as a suspect, that "a number of law-enforcement officials have said privately for months that they thought Mr. Jewell had been involved in the bombing, even though there was no evidence against him and some evidence seemed to rule him out."

Jewell was never officially charged, but the FBI thoroughly and publicly searched his home twice, questioned his associates, investigated his background, and maintained 24-hour surveillance of him. The pressure began to ease only after Jewell's attorneys hired an ex-FBI agent to administer a polygraph, which Jewell passed.

A Justice Department investigation of the FBI's conduct found the FBI had tried to manipulate Jewell into waiving his constitutional rights by telling him he was taking part in a training film about bomb detection, although the report concluded "no intentional violation of Mr. Jewell's civil rights and no criminal misconduct" had taken place."

No evidence. Made-up motive. Treat him guilty anyway and ruin his life.

I don't know who is worse. Police, media or the public with their lynch mob mentality.

[–] strntz (12223) 2 years ago

You flat earthers are a hoot.

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 years ago

I would say its the media. they can collectively spread fake news to sway peoples opinions.

[–] Keelai (34853) 2 years ago

Both the FBI and cops started it by suspecting him then likely leaked to the press. The news media went into a feeding frenzy destroying his life. Similar situation with the Central Park 5.

"The story of what happened to Richard Jewell is now a case study in irresponsible reporting by the press and reckless investigation by the FBI.

“This case has everything — the FBI, the press, the violation of the Bill of Rights, from the First to the Sixth Amendment,” said Watson Bryant, one of Jewell’s attorneys, of his client’s infamous case.

Richard Jewell sued several news outlets for libel and won settlements from Piedmont College, the New York Post, CNN, and NBC (the latter for a reported $500,000).

Nevertheless, no amount of settlements could have ever given Richard Jewell back two important things he lost: his dignity and peace. On August 29, 2007, Richard Jewell died from heart disease and complications from diabetes. He was just 44 years old."
https://allthatsinteresting.com/richard-jewell

What a shame! I didn't know he had died.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

What does this have to do with Jussie Smollett? How are the two men comparable?

Also, there were, and still are, certain people, of a certain leaning, who'd LOVE Richard Jewell, a straight, single, white man with limited education, staunchly pro-cop, very patriotic, likely a conservative Republican, fired from a previous security job for being over-zealous with respect to the (generally left-leaning, educated, possibly minority, middle-class, anti-authoritarian) students he was monitoring, fits all the hallmarks of an 'incel', to have been guilty. Are you one of them Keelai? 🤔

[–] strntz (12223) 2 years ago

What does this have to do with Jussie Smollett? How are the two men comparable?

The former is guilty and the latter was innocent. Oh wait, maybe they aren't..

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Maybe I'm being unfair, but something tells me that people of Keelai's persuasion would have liked Jewell to be guilty and for Smollett to be innocent...

That's the problem with putting ideological agendas and narratives ahead of FACTS and THE TRUTH.

[–] strntz (12223) 2 years ago

Sigh.. so true.

[–] Keelai (34853) 2 years ago

Rush to judgment in both cases.

"...who'd LOVE Richard Jewell..."
Bull! Poor Jewell was persecuted, ridiculed and maligned by law enforcement and the news media. I was disgusted by the lies about him. I was happy to finally see the truth emerge.

"fired from a previous security job for being over-zealous"
Bull! Jewell sued them for libel and they settled with him. Why are you repeating those same lies?

"...hallmarks of an 'incel'"
Bull! An incel hates women. No evidence of that. But, you have no problem lying about a dead man. You're sickening.

"Keelai's persuasion would have liked Jewell to be guilty and for Smollett to be innocent"
Bull! You like to create lies about people and you easily believe lies about people.

R.I.P., Mr. Jewell. You were a true hero!

[–] clashwho (758) a year ago

The only rush to judgment in Jussie Smollet's case was how many gullible public figures believed his ludicrous tale.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 2 years ago

Ridiculous comparison. Jewell was eventually found to be completely innocent, while Smollett was found to be completely guilty--a lying, race-baiting fraud.

[–] Keelai (34853) 2 years ago

It's not over yet.

Jewell's life was ruined and now you and your lynch mob want to ruin Smollet's life based on your racism.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Why is this guy racist? All he did was mention the facts.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 3 days ago

Yep, those were the facts, and everyone with a brain knows it. Unfortunately, today (11-21-24) Juicy got off on a legal technicality, in spite of the fact that he's a lying, race-baiting little cunt. Keelai will be wetting himself like a puppy and declaring a new negro holiday to go with Juneteenth and the O.J. acquittal.

[–] Bucky (274) 3 days ago

Keelai seems to confuse getting off on a technicality with innocence.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/smollett-charges-overturned-1.7389582

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Interesting insight, but Jussie went to trial and was found guilty - they had a lot of evidence.

Not sure how the two compare.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

They compare! Law enforcement jumps to conclusions. The media drags a person's reputation through the mud. Both happened before any trial.

Did you read about the innocent woman who was recently arrested for a robbery based on facial recognition technology? The only thing that saved her was that she was 8 months pregnant. If she hadn't been pregnant, she would still be languishing in prison. Facial recognition technology is 100x more likely to mistake blacks and Asians.
https://people.com/pregnant-woman-falsely-accused-carjacking-facial-recognition-technology-7571184

"they had a lot of evidence."

They really didn't. Most people only READ about there being "a lot of evidence" based on lazy reporting from mass media without examining it nor using critical thinking skills. I read all of the court papers, witness statements, videos, photographs, phone records, etc. The testimony of his two attackers is not credible since it's in their best interest to lie to protect themselves. A check stating the money was for physical training and nutrition in the memo section isn't proof since he was getting in shape for a music video. Arresting someone because they go to a 24-hour restaurant at night is not evidence. I understand white people were upset because he identified his attackers as white. But two white witnesses who saw them identified them as white, also! That was likely the brothers' intention. This became a witch hunt because he said they were white and now whites are upset and want him to be punished.

Jussie said the two brothers may have attacked him in order to be hired as his bodyguards. There is also plenty of homophobic tweets on their phones which could be another motive. Anyway, there is more than enough reasonable doubt.

"was found guilty"

Sadly, that doesn't mean anything. Thousands of innocent people are in prison. I repeatedly read stories of innocent people being released after serving 10, 15, 20 25 years. Horrible!!! I know a guilty person who should serve hard time, but won't because of "right connections". There is no justice.

Btw, observe what's happening with Russell Brand. An accusation can destroy a career. I've seen this happen repeatedly to others like George Takei, Michael Jackson, Johnny Depp and Chris Hardwick who were vindicated later. I won't be a part of any witch hunt.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

"Btw, observe what's happening with Russell Brand. An accusation can destroy a career. I've seen this happen repeatedly to others like George Takei, Michael Jackson, Johnny Depp and Chris Hardwick who were vindicated later. I won't be a part of any witch hunt."
Johnny Depp and Michael Jackson were found not guilty in court. Smollet was found guilty. While less than 5% of people are convicted are actually innocent, that means the rest are guilty. A lot of people who say they are innocent are actually guilty.
As for the rest, I simply have a lot of trouble believing you.
Sorry.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

"While less than 5% of people are convicted are actually innocent, that means the rest are guilty."

No, it doesn't. It means they were found guilty. Not the same thing. And those are murder cases which are the focus for DNA exonerations. Minor drug cases and other criminal activity with shorter sentences are not normally included in the statistic.
Realistically, it would be much higher than 5% when a black male is the defendant.

"A lot of people who say they are innocent are actually guilty. "

Actually, many who are innocent plead guilty because of how the U.S. judicial criminal system works. Fewer than 5% of criminal defendants go to trial. It's normal for prosecutors to threaten the accused with worse charges and a harsh sentence unless they plead guilty and take a plea. An innocent person can spend months in jail with loss of job, health insurance, disruption of family life, etc. unless they do. The TV shows you watch have nothing to do with reality.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminaljustice/plea-bargain-tf-report.pdf

"29%: Involved false confessions"
69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification
43%: Involved misapplication of forensic science
https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

There was a similar witch hunt with Bill Cosby. The first prosecutor made an agreement with Cosby not to charge him so Cosby freely testified in a different matter. A new prosecutor decided to scrap the agreement which destroyed Cosby's ability to defend himself since he already testified. A prosecutor can't just unilaterally and capriciously nullify an agreement made by a previous prosecutor. That's the reason Cosby was released from prison by the judge. He should never have been tried as per agreement!

Similar situation with Smollet. An agreement nullified. There should not have been a trial. Double jeopardy? Judge will decide.

You haven't personally looked at any of the evidence. Just reading second-hand mass media stories without using any critical thinking skills to confirm is laziness on your part. You can easily confirm everything I wrote by using Google. You don't because you fear the truth. I prefer the truth. BTW, I gave plenty of links to the evidence in other posts.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

You know, the way you are arguing about this, I am either going to assume you are Jussie Smollet himself, or you are a complete wack job. Get help.

You make it sound, using the Strawman argument, as if every 2nd person is innocent. While there are a small amount of innocent people in prison (less than 5%), not every person who cries innocence is actually innocent.

"No, it doesn't. It means they were found guilty." Yeah, lay off the drugs.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

Your ad hominem attacks show you have no arguments based on logic and facts!

Twelve strangers stating an innocent person is guilty doesn't change the reality of his/her innocence. Nor does an acquittal magically change a guilty person into someone innocent. A jurors' decision is based on many factors such as attorney competence, permissible court evidence and testimony or lack of it, judge's instructions and biases or lack of it and implicit bias of the jurors, defendant's financial means to hire competent counsel, etc..

"as if every 2nd person is innocent."
I suggest you reread what I wrote since you're mistaken.

"the way you are arguing about this"

I hadn't posted about Smollet for months and was content to wait until the judge's decision about double jeopardy. YOU are the one who started this exchange!

"they had a lot of evidence... Not sure how the two compare."
YOU wrote about a lot of evidence without bringing up any. And YOU ASKED about a comparison.

Don't attack me because YOU can't properly defend YOUR own position.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Whatever Jussie.

[–] DancingintheDark (1608) a year ago

Or one of the enabling siblings. There’s like 12 of them or something and they’re all convinced Juicy was attacked by two white supremacists who magically turned Nigerian after he was convicted of staging a hate crime by a jury of his fellow Chicago peers.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Yeah, I suppose if one repeats a lie long enough, you begin to believe it.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

You're lying to yourself.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Jussie, are we a little upset there muffin?

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

"they had a lot of evidence."

I'm still waiting for you to name it.

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Jussie, you know you're guilty.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

"two white witnesses who saw them identified them as white, also!"

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

One has to feel sorry for Keelai (Jussie)....desperately trying to convince everyone he's innocent.

I notice he hasn't denied it.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

"there is more than enough reasonable doubt."

RIF.org
You're welcome!

[–] Bucky (274) a year ago

Really?

So how come he wasn't aquitted?

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you help out in Smollet's defense, either financially or offering to help?

Instead you post on here and get heckled.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

Reread my previous posts.

RIF.org
You're welcome!

[–] Bucky (274) 9 months ago

Why? You're trying to compare apples and oranges when comparing Smollet's case with other's. While there are similarities, each case is different.

BTW, his appeal was denied a few months ago. LOL

[–] Keelai (34853) 9 months ago

Case pending before Illinois Supreme Court.

[–] Bucky (274) 9 months ago

Which was denied on 1 Dec 23.

[–] Keelai (34853) 9 months ago

That was the three-judge panel of the Illinois Appellate Court. Case pending in front of Illinois Supreme Court.
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/jussie-smollett-appeal-illinois-supreme-court-hate-crime-attack/

[–] Bucky (274) 9 months ago

I'm sure he will lose. They said in the article that they only accept a small amount of cases.

Jussie will spend a lot of money on a useless cause. He should be training for another career.

[–] BKB (9877) a year ago

So what exactly are you implying with the title of this thread?? That Smollett did nothing wrong?? The dude made up a fucking hate crime and blamed it on MAGA for heaven's sake and got busted for it

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

You sound angry.

[–] MCguy (1134) a year ago

I'll state the obvious - Keelai is delusional.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

I hope you're never on jury duty.

[–] MCguy (1134) a year ago

Hmmm. I would say that about you.

[–] Keelai (34853) a year ago

Your ad hominem post is laziness.

Read these court documents for discussion:
https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/courts-appellate-court-high-profile-cases/

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Keelai,

Your comparison of Jussie Smollett to Richard Jewell is completely outrageous and absolute nonsense. Richard Jewell was briefly considered a suspect by the FBI. In contrast, Jussie Smollett was investigated and considered by law enforcement to be so clearly guilty that the U.S. Attorney prosecuted him and was able to convince a jury that he was guilty. Unlike with Richard Jewell, the government never abandoned its belief that Jussie Smollett was guilty. In order for your analogy to work Smollett would have had to be officially cleared by law enforcement, the prosecution or the courts. But his conviction remains to this day so your analogy completely fails.

[–] JBran (1658) a year ago

[deleted]