Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Jussie Smollett Doc - Netflix
2,742 Views |
28 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by Iowaggie
ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
Isn't netflix the same company that was slobbering all over Obama...?
Yeah, no-one is buying that smollet is anything but a racist, lying piece of garbage who desperately wants attention and to be a victim. Nowadays you have to go out of your way to be said victim because things aren't as bad as they want them to be on that front, and that they expect the whole "believe all women" approach to apply to "believe all (insert victim group of choice)", and that questioning it will get you cancelled by default. And since smollett hit two victim groups he never truly believed that he wouldn't get away with his lies and that it could ever backfire. The fact that some are still desperately trying to give him any credibility is embarrassing.
ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
Just wait until you hear about all of the people who still maintain their innocence while doing jail time.
Benny the Jet Rodriguez
Joined:
Sep 4, 2004
Posts:
4,197
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
OJ always said he was innocent too...I believe him.
no. and this absolutely did not require a documentary.
JCA1 said:ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
Just wait until you hear about all of the people who still maintain their innocence while doing jail time.
Redd was the only man in Shawshank that claimed he was guilty.
ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
... by design.
Milwaukees Best Light
Joined:
Nov 1, 2007
Posts:
18,809
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wait til you watch what they did to Steven Avery!
It will be interesting to see how Jussie is portrayed in Special Forces this coming season. Will he continue to claim innocence or will he be broken down and admit the hoax.
JamesPShelley said:ttaggie said:
Anyone else watch this? Didn't see any post about it. It was a fairly open and shut case from a few years ago...basically still is, but the doc did a good job of trying to report on a few things that might give some reasonable doubt in the minds of a few. Couple of things I didn't know, he maintained his innocence even in the face of prison time. There were two witnesses (eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable) that claim to have seen the persons of interest and said they were white. AND some video evidence that at least gives pause to Smollett's guilt.
... by design.
I called BS the day this story broke, so wasn't surprised when it later crumbled and was determined to be a huge lie. But I thought that he came clean and admitted it was all fake - had no idea that he stuck to the lie. Now I hate him even more.
I mean, the two Jamaican brothers came forward and spilled the whole scam, so who cares about some "witnesses" that came forward months/years later?
Let me guess - Netflix's thesis was that this documentary "Continues an important conversation about racism in America...".
I mean, the two Jamaican brothers came forward and spilled the whole scam, so who cares about some "witnesses" that came forward months/years later?
Let me guess - Netflix's thesis was that this documentary "Continues an important conversation about racism in America...".
No not really. I wouldn't say the doc took any sides, they really just laid out facts...I just found it interesting from a legal standpoint. Dont get me wrong, I believe he is guilty...but if I were on the jury would any of the other information presented in this doc make room for "reasonable" doubt. His conviction was overturned. "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as innocent.
He was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
I watched it, he was guilty with what he was charged with and should have gone to jail.
It was an obvious hoax from the jump to anyone with more than two braincells to rub together.
It was an obvious hoax from the jump to anyone with more than two braincells to rub together.
I didn't watch it but when I saw it on the list I said I hope they didn't pay him to continue his blatant attempt to foment hatred across the country.
Staff - take out the trash.
ttaggie said:
No not really. I wouldn't say the doc took any sides, they really just laid out facts...I just found it interesting from a legal standpoint. Dont get me wrong, I believe he is guilty...but if I were on the jury would any of the other information presented in this doc make room for "reasonable" doubt. His conviction was overturned. "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as innocent.
It was overturned due to a Constitutional technicality relating to due process. It had absolutely nothing to do with exonerating him of the commission of the hoax.
In the absence of racism, one must manufacture it. /jussie
Dude claimed he walked thru a blizzard for a Subway sandwich rather than order DoorDash at 2 in the morning. Please spare me.
"This is MAGA country!"
ttaggie said:
No not really. I wouldn't say the doc took any sides, they really just laid out facts...I just found it interesting from a legal standpoint. Dont get me wrong, I believe he is guilty...but if I were on the jury would any of the other information presented in this doc make room for "reasonable" doubt. His conviction was overturned. "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as innocent.
His conviction was overturned because of a prior agreement not to prosecute if he paid money and did community service. Smollett upheld his end of the deal, the Supreme Court ordered the state to uphold theirs. The reversal of the conviction had nothing to do with the sufficiency of evidence. It was on due process grounds
Rex Racer said:
"This is MAGA country!"
I mean, me and my buddies frequently get liquored up and go ridin' around in Jethro's big 'ol noisy truck festooned with MAGA flags looking for marginalized peoples to rough up.
I just assumed we all did.
Watched Alien: Covenant for the first time about a week ago. I did a double take at Smollett showing up in that.
He got wrecked by the Alien, so there's that at least!
Complete side note, I've gotta say Danny McBride was really dang good in the movie. He's got some chops that you don't always get to see with his more comedic shows/movies.
He got wrecked by the Alien, so there's that at least!
Complete side note, I've gotta say Danny McBride was really dang good in the movie. He's got some chops that you don't always get to see with his more comedic shows/movies.
Ghost91 said:
I called BS the day this story broke, so wasn't surprised when it later crumbled and was determined to be a huge lie. But I thought that he came clean and admitted it was all fake - had no idea that he stuck to the lie. Now I hate him even more.
I mean, the two Jamaican brothers came forward and spilled the whole scam, so who cares about some "witnesses" that came forward months/years later?
Let me guess - Netflix's thesis was that this documentary "Continues an important conversation about racism in America...".
Not Jamaican, Nigerians brothers, which leads to the joke
"Juicy is the only American to scam Nigerians." - Dave Chappelle
Captain Pablo said:ttaggie said:
No not really. I wouldn't say the doc took any sides, they really just laid out facts...I just found it interesting from a legal standpoint. Dont get me wrong, I believe he is guilty...but if I were on the jury would any of the other information presented in this doc make room for "reasonable" doubt. His conviction was overturned. "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as innocent.
His conviction was overturned because of a prior agreement not to prosecute if he paid money and did community service. Smollett upheld his end of the deal, the Supreme Court ordered the state to uphold theirs. The reversal of the conviction had nothing to do with the sufficiency of evidence. It was on due process grounds
It's been a while so I may have my facts wrong, but wasn't that the sweetheart deal offered by the Soros DA who was eventually removed from the case?
JCA1 said:Captain Pablo said:ttaggie said:
No not really. I wouldn't say the doc took any sides, they really just laid out facts...I just found it interesting from a legal standpoint. Dont get me wrong, I believe he is guilty...but if I were on the jury would any of the other information presented in this doc make room for "reasonable" doubt. His conviction was overturned. "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as innocent.
His conviction was overturned because of a prior agreement not to prosecute if he paid money and did community service. Smollett upheld his end of the deal, the Supreme Court ordered the state to uphold theirs. The reversal of the conviction had nothing to do with the sufficiency of evidence. It was on due process grounds
It's been a while so I may have my facts wrong, but wasn't that the sweetheart deal offered by the Soros DA who was eventually removed from the case?
Dunno who offered it, but it was definitely a sweetheart deal
Google AI overview -
Initial Agreement:
In March 2019, Smollett's defense team reached a deal with prosecutors where the initial 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct were dropped in exchange for Smollett forfeiting a $10,000 bond and completing community service.
Revival of Charges:
Despite this agreement, a special prosecutor was appointed, and a grand jury subsequently indicted Smollett on new charges related to the same incident.
Conviction and Sentencing:
Smollett was convicted on five counts of disorderly conduct and sentenced to 150 days in jail, plus other penalties.
Overturning the Conviction:
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction, stating that the second prosecution violated Smollett's constitutional right to due process because it ignored the previous agreement. The court emphasized that the state should be bound by agreements made with defendants, even if some find the resolution unsatisfactory.
Initial Agreement:
In March 2019, Smollett's defense team reached a deal with prosecutors where the initial 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct were dropped in exchange for Smollett forfeiting a $10,000 bond and completing community service.
Revival of Charges:
Despite this agreement, a special prosecutor was appointed, and a grand jury subsequently indicted Smollett on new charges related to the same incident.
Conviction and Sentencing:
Smollett was convicted on five counts of disorderly conduct and sentenced to 150 days in jail, plus other penalties.
Overturning the Conviction:
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction, stating that the second prosecution violated Smollett's constitutional right to due process because it ignored the previous agreement. The court emphasized that the state should be bound by agreements made with defendants, even if some find the resolution unsatisfactory.
Halftime of Lakers-Rockets in 2019, you could tell Chuck and Shaq weren't buying it.
Featured Stories
See All
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
14:26
4d ago
4.4k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
25:58
4d ago
5.2k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
9:03
4d ago
2.0k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell