Jussie Smollet - Horrible Hate Crime or Horrible Case of TDS?

[Derec]

I don't see this as odd at all.
My conservative irish Catholic mom would have.
She'd have brought her sharp tongue to a courtroom. Really, she could be a force!
Tom

 

[Derec]

Sherri Papini's kidnapping stoked racial division and fear. Investigators say it was all a lie

Sherri Papini said she was abducted by two Latina women in Northern California. But authorities say she was with an ex-boyfriend in Orange County.

www.latimes.com

 

[Derec]

somewhere in there is Smollet, but it sort of alludes me as to exactly where it fits into conservative narratives and why they are so fixated on prioritizing this topic. Can someone explain this?

It probably has to do with
a) the fact that he explicitly claimed that he was attacked by MAGA-hat wearing whites and
b) how much attention the case initially got by very prominent Democrats across the Democratic spectrum, from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (establishment) to AOC and Rashida Tlaib (upstart squaddies).

 

[thebeave]

Its a bit odd that his family has stood by him so firmly through the whole investigation.

Not really. Over the past few years they have been fed a constant diet of how "systemic racism" etc. is the cause of all and every one of their problems.

Well, looks like Juicy is playing the "systemic racism" card regarding getting jail time:

I GOT JAIL TIME BECAUSE I'M BLACK

Jussie Smollett believes there's one overarching reason he was sent to jail, and it's not because of the hoax ... he says it's because he's Black.

Sources with direct knowledge and in constant touch with the "Empire" actor tell TMZ ... Jussie fully expected to get jail time. He told his defense team before sentencing he felt he would be treated more harshly than other defendants convicted of a non-violent crime ... all because of the color of his skin. He thinks it's more evidence of systemic racism in the judicial system.

There's also this little tidbit of info. It confirms what I thought earlier about his courtroom ouburst on not being suicidal:

Our sources say Jussie spoke out in court about not being suicidal because he wanted to make it clear to the public that if something were to happen to him in jail, it was foul play ... and our sources referenced the Jeffrey Epstein outcome, and that was what was on Jussie's mind when he made the comment.

 

[blastula]

Its been 5 years! Did they have Barney Fife working on this case?

They couldn't really disprove her story (she actually did a good job disappearing herself without leaving any evidence of how) until the middle of 2020 when they were finally able to match DNA found on her clothing to an ex-boyfriend, and then he spilled the whole story of how he helped her. FBI questioned her again and she continued to lie to them, so she's been charged with false statements. Don't know what's been going on since 2020, maybe covid related delays. She also had collected $30K in victim compensation's assistance, so she's being charged in relation to that too.

Should be an easy conviction if goes to trial, and she is crazy enough to think she could win.

 

[blastula]

Its a bit odd that his family has stood by him so firmly through the whole investigation.

Not really. Over the past few years they have been fed a constant diet of how "systemic racism" etc. is the cause of all and every one of their problems.

Well, looks like Juicy is playing the "systemic racism" card regarding getting jail time:

I GOT JAIL TIME BECAUSE I'M BLACK

His family are a bunch of enablers and did him no favors with their act at the courthouse. I mean in their mitigation statements before sentencing. That's not the time to be proclaiming innocence, it's for expressing remorse and apologies to victims. But they just doubled down on crying innocent and whining about discrimination.

BLM and PUSH and the Innocence Project all also brought shame to themselves with their statements imo.

 

[thebeave]

Its been 5 years! Did they have Barney Fife working on this case?

They couldn't really disprove her story (she did a good job disappearing herself without leaving any evidence of how) until the middle of 2020 when they were finally able to match DNA found on her clothing to an ex-boyfriend, and then he spilled the whole story of how he helped her. FBI questioned her again and she continued to lie to them, so she's been charged with false statements. Don't know what's been going on since 2020, maybe covid related delays. She also had collected $30K in victim compensation's assistance, so she's being charged in relation to that too.

Should be an easy conviction if goes to trial, and she is crazy enough to think she could win.

It will be interesting to see how her sentence compares to that of Jussie Smollett. Very similar situations. Will she get the "young, pretty blond girl" slap on the wrist, or is she gonna end up as a prisoner in Cell Block H?

 

[thebeave]

Its a bit odd that his family has stood by him so firmly through the whole investigation.

Not really. Over the past few years they have been fed a constant diet of how "systemic racism" etc. is the cause of all and every one of their problems.

Well, looks like Juicy is playing the "systemic racism" card regarding getting jail time:

I GOT JAIL TIME BECAUSE I'M BLACK

His family are a bunch of enablers and did him no favors with their act at the courthouse. I mean in their mitigation statements before sentencing. That's not the time to be proclaiming innocence, it's for expressing remorse and apologies to victims. But they just doubled down on crying innocent and whining about discrimination.

BLM and PUSH and the Innocence Project all also brought shame to themselves with their statements imo.

Yep. NAACP too. That was really uncool for them to take Jussie's side. They now have a major credibility and bias problem on their hands. From what I've seen, generally black people are NOT on Jussie's side, and recognize him for the fraud that he is, and the damage he has done.

 

[blastula]

Another thing about the Papini case is the police there probably didn't want to make the same mistake the Vallejo PD made with the Denise Huskins kidnapping. She was gone for 2 days, and the day she returned the police right away announced that it was a hoax.

$2.5 million settlement for couple in bizarre kidnapping police called "Gone Girl" hoax

Police initially discounted a report by a couple that a masked intruder drugged them in their home and kidnapped the woman

www.cbsnews.com

 

[thebeave]

Another thing about the Papini case is the police there probably didn't want to make the same mistake the Vallejo PD made with the Denise Huskins kidnapping. She was gone for 2 days, and the day she returned the police right away announced that it was a hoax.

$2.5 million settlement for couple in bizarre kidnapping police called "Gone Girl" hoax

Police initially discounted a report by a couple that a masked intruder drugged them in their home and kidnapped the woman

www.cbsnews.com

Yep. I'm ashamed to say that I got fooled on that one too. I was shocked to find out it really happened. So much of it didn't make sense in the beginning. An example of Occam's Razor not being infallible.

 

[Trausti]

 

[TSwizzle]

Looks like Jussie has been released pending an appeal. I doubt he will serve any more of his jail sentence now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Jussie is back in court with an appeal.

The odd thing is I don't remember this going to trial (despite me apparently posting this thread post conviction). I remember the "attack", the exposure, the charges, the dropped charges, and I thought that was that. But apparently, charges were restated (as they should have, it seemed like a slam dunk case), there was a trial, guilt was had, and now Smollet wants a mulligan because of a previous agreement where he says things were already settled. It hangs on an alleged technicality. People with money love technicalities.

The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Jussie Smollett, the former “Empire” actor whose convictions for staging a hate crime caused fevered international media attention.

This means that the case, which has continued as Smollett fights his convictions, will carry on a little longer.

A lower appellate court affirmed his convictions for falsely reporting a hate crime to Chicago police in January of 2019 even as Smollett alleged a laundry list of violations in the case handled by special prosecutor Dan Webb after the Cook County state’s attorney’s office controversially dropped all charges.

 

[blastula]

This means it was not a hoax.

Jussie Smollett's Convictions Overturned by Illinois Supreme Court

The actor was previously found guilty of staging a hate crime in Chicago in 2019.

people.com

The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned the convictions of Jussie Smollett, the actor who was previously found guilty of falsely reporting a hate crime following a high-profile 2019 incident.

The state's highest court ruled on Thursday, Nov. 21, that Smollett's rights were violated when a special prosecutor pursued charges after the Cook County State's Attorney previously dropped them.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dammit! Ninja'd by Blastula.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This means it was not a hoax.

Jussie Smollett's Convictions Overturned by Illinois Supreme Court

The actor was previously found guilty of staging a hate crime in Chicago in 2019.

people.com

The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned the convictions of Jussie Smollett, the actor who was previously found guilty of falsely reporting a hate crime following a high-profile 2019 incident.

The state's highest court ruled on Thursday, Nov. 21, that Smollett's rights were violated when a special prosecutor pursued charges after the Cook County State's Attorney previously dropped them.

This just means the court is woke because it's a result I do not like (sarcasm)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This means it was not a hoax.

Jussie Smollett's Convictions Overturned by Illinois Supreme Court

The actor was previously found guilty of staging a hate crime in Chicago in 2019.

people.com

The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned the convictions of Jussie Smollett, the actor who was previously found guilty of falsely reporting a hate crime following a high-profile 2019 incident.

The state's highest court ruled on Thursday, Nov. 21, that Smollett's rights were violated when a special prosecutor pursued charges after the Cook County State's Attorney previously dropped them.

This just means the court is woke because it's a result I do not like (sarcasm)

No. The court isn't woke, but that doesn't mean the guy isn't guilty.

Assuming the reporting is accurate it means that the conviction was tossed on double jeopardy grounds, not because he was innocent.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Next stop for Jussie: the remake of Tuesdays with Morrie, co-starring the Cos.

 

[Gospel]

Weren’t the initial charges dropped without prejudice, allowing the case to be revisited if new evidence came to light? A special counsel was appointed because it seemed justice had not been served, and they determined there was sufficient evidence to refile the charges. From what I understand, double jeopardy applies only after a jury has delivered a verdict, regardless of whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. There was no jury verdict when the charges were dropped, there was one after chargers were refiled. Am I missing something?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This means it was not a hoax.

I don't believe that is accurate.

Weren’t the initial charges dropped without prejudice, allowing the case to be revisited if new evidence came to light? A special counsel was appointed because it seemed justice had not been served, and they determined there was sufficient evidence to refile the charges. From what I understand, double jeopardy applies only after a jury has delivered a verdict, regardless of whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. There was no jury verdict when the charges were dropped, there was one after chargers were refiled. Am I missing something?

From the decision, in part.

The rule that the State relies upon—that a defendant may be reprosecuted after a nolle prosequi—has never been absolute. Rather, as this court has clearly stated:“[W]e have previously held that if a nolle prosequi is entered before jeopardy attaches, the State may reprosecute the defendant subject to other relevant statutory or constitutional defenses (see, e.g., Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213Ill. 2d 94, 102 (2004) (nolle prose qui ‘does not toll the statute of limitations’))and ‘ “absent a showing of harassment, bad faith, or fundamental unfairness.” ’Norris, 214 Ill. 2d at 104 (quoting People v. DeBlieck, 181 Ill. App. 3d 600,606, (1989)).” (Emphasis added.) Hughes, 2012 IL 112817, ¶ 23.As we have already explained above, Illinois case law establishes that it is fundamentally unfair to allow the prosecution to renege on a deal with a defendant when the defendant has relied on the agreement to his detriment.

...

At oral argument, defense counsel was asked whether this court had ever recognized a distinction between a unilateral and bilateral nolle. Defense counsel conceded that this court had not used those precise terms but argued that the distinction was implicit in this court’s case law. We agree. While it is true that no Illinois court has used the term “bilateral nolle,” this court has clearly recognized the principle that a nolle entered as part of an agreement bars further prosecution.

Effectively, he made restitution already, so that was that. Person that agreed to it should be fired.

AND WHY CAN'T COURT PDFs HAVE SPACES BEFORE THE DAMNED CARRIAGE RETURNS!?!?!?!?!?