horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
If it was not for the "MAGA" country bit, there would be no controversy.
You have a bunch of right wing ideologuts who don't want to admit one of their own could do something like this. That is it in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
It's peddling a conspiracy theory under the guise of critical thinking.

And why do I think a lot of "this was fake" talking points are coming off of right wing websites?
Click to expand...

Until or unless there is evidence for something else, this seems the likeliest explanation to me.
 
William Parcher said:
Maybe Smollett never meant for the fake attack story to be told to police or the public. Maybe it was originally only to be told to the guy in the condo and then that would be the end of it.
Click to expand...

So that's why he bought the clothesline? When did he buy the clothesline?


ETA: If you were planning on mugging someone a new clothesline would be the better option since there's less chance of contaminating it with your DNA etc.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Yes, but there's scant reason to think that, given, as I've repeatedly said, that he has a lot to lose and nothing to gain from being caught in a fraud, wasting police time etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think that carries as much weight as you do. First of all, consider William Parcher's comment above. And secondly, in today's crazy culture of identity politics, there is a lot to gain by being seen as a victim of a hate crime. Look how common it is for people to fake these kinds of incidents. What do you think their motivations are?
 
dudalb said:
It's peddling a conspiracy theory under the guise of critical thinking.

And why do I think a lot of "this was fake" talking points are coming off of right wing websites?
Click to expand...

Huh, now why would you think that? Tis a mystery.

The points I am getting are coming from my familiarity with the places this allegedly happened, extensive reporting in the local press, information provided by the CPD, and to a lesser degree locals discussing the alleged event.
 
LTC8K6 said:
This is a skeptic board. Expect skepticism of extraordinary events here, not blind acceptance.......
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing scepticism in this at all. When I see critical thinking applied in both directions equally (ie scepticism of the story, and scepticism of the dreamt-up scenarios being peddled here) then I'll accept a claim of scepticism. I'm not seeing that at all. I am seeing nothing but conspiracy-mongering, unfettered by any semblance of critical thinking.

I ask gain, for the umpteenth time, what could he possibly have had to gain, and what has he got to lose? When that is properly analysed, and brought into the equation every time another out-of-thin-air theory is aired, then, and only then, will the conspiracy mongers here have any claim to critical thinking.
 
Why wouldn’t he turn over the phone to police? Or if not the phone, a printout of calls during the time period which is easily found on your phone company’s web site?

I simply can’t imagine why he wouldn’t. Unless of course...there was no manager call.

What am I missing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MikeG said:
Yes, but there's scant reason to think that, given, as I've repeatedly said, that he has a lot to lose and nothing to gain from being caught in a fraud, wasting police time etc.
Click to expand...

He knows there is little to no chance that the cops will be able to or willing to prove it did not happen, he's too famous with way too many supporters.

Plus, he ain't like a white woman who called the cops on a black.

damn, if this was Lower Water Lucy? Oh mercy, The Root would already have posted six stories about wypiple
 
TRump thinks the attack really happened.
Trump is a guy whose word I would take for nothing, but that he thinks it's true is probably causing some sputtering among some people here.
I repeat: The "whole think is fake" is mainly politicially motivated conspiracy theory mongering masquerading as critical thinking. Something we have seen auite a bit of.
 
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I don't think that carries as much weight as you do. First of all, consider William Parcher's comment above.
Click to expand...

Which one? He's made lots of comments above.


And secondly, in today's crazy culture of identity politics, there is a lot to gain by being seen as a victim of a hate crime. Look how common it is for people to fake these kinds of incidents. What do you think their motivations are?
Click to expand...

I don't live in a "crazy culture of identity politics". I don't live somewhere where it is "common for people to fake these kinds of incidents". So I haven't a clue as to any such person's motivation, or even if such people really exist. I live somewhere where the police gather evidence, the CPS decides whether to bring charges, and people are innocent until proven guilty.

Can you point me to any successful people in the public eye who have faked something of this nature? Someone with the same balance of what's to be gained against what's to be lost as this actor?
 
MikeG said:
I'm not seeing scepticism in this at all. When I see critical thinking applied in both directions equally (ie scepticism of the story, and scepticism of the dreamt-up scenarios being peddled here) then I'll accept a claim of scepticism. I'm not seeing that at all. I am seeing nothing but conspiracy-mongering, unfettered by any semblance of critical thinking.

I ask gain, for the umpteenth time, what could he possibly have had to gain, and what has he got to lose? When that is properly analysed, and brought into the equation every time another out-of-thin-air theory is aired, then, and only then, will the conspiracy mongers here have any claim to critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't treat extraordinary stories equally, though.

The burden of proof for an extraordinary story is on the person telling the story, as it should be.

I found the story extraordinary the moment I heard of it.

If the bleach and the noose were left out, it would have been less extraordinary to me.

Back to sleuthing.

According to Google maps, it seems to be at most a 5 minute walk from the Subway store to the apartment block. So there's apparently not a lot of time left between the Subway video cams and the released video footage of his arrival at his building.

EDIT: it's still not clear where Smollett walked to first, after leaving the Subway store.
 
Last edited:
In that case I reconsider. Bill Cosby never molested any women, Brian Dennehy never lied about serving five years in Vietnam, Mel Gibson never went off on an anti-Semitic tirade to a cop, because I can't imagine why they would do it. Ergo, they didn't.
 
MikeG said:
I ask gain, for the umpteenth time, what could he possibly have had to gain
Click to expand...

My guess would be attention. Which is probably the same thing that motivated all the other people who have fraudulently claimed hate crimes against themselves.

But regardless, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on motive. The fact remains that people do fraudulently claim hate crimes. So something clearly motivates people to do it. Whatever that motive is, there's no reason to think it can't apply here.
 
MikeG said:
I'm not seeing scepticism in this at all. When I see critical thinking applied in both directions equally (ie scepticism of the story, and scepticism of the dreamt-up scenarios being peddled here) then I'll accept a claim of scepticism. I'm not seeing that at all. I am seeing nothing but conspiracy-mongering, unfettered by any semblance of critical thinking.



I ask gain, for the umpteenth time, what could he possibly have had to gain, and what has he got to lose? When that is properly analysed, and brought into the equation every time another out-of-thin-air theory is aired, then, and only then, will the conspiracy mongers here have any claim to critical thinking.
Click to expand...



What he has to gain is obvious: sympathy and the attendant publicity. It also would serve to push a narrative about how bad Trump supporters are. He may have thought that the chances of the story being proven false were very slim, not considering the amount of surveillance cameras in the area.

OTOH, the risk of the story falling apart is not zero and the consequences would be devastating to his career. So is Smollett the kind of person who would take that risk? If he’s a rational person, I would say probably not.

I’m willing to take him at his word but the investigation so far has not corroborated his story. The fact that there is no attack on video, he didn’t stop in the lobby and mention anything to the security guard and the fact that he has so far refused to turn over his phone tends to cast some doubt in my mind. The fact that something obviously happened to him and the fact that making up a story could ruin him tend to support him.

So I can’t say that I have enough info to make up my mind either way. If pressed, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. I just hope that for society’s sake that he didn’t fake this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
William Parcher said:
Smollett may have given descriptions to the cops that went beyond ski masks and gloves. He may have described clothing. I noticed that the guys in the video stills seem to be dressed only generically and with dark colors - this is because we can't see detail. But the one guy has very light colored pants and they might be white pants.

A simple description coming from Smollett might be, "clothes were all dark, except the one guy had on white pants". That there might seal it for the police that the guys on video are the attackers.
Click to expand...

https://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/01/empire-tv-star-claims-racist-anti-gay.html

From experienced observers, the most interesting part of the dispatch records is this: Responding officers never issued a "flash message" to give descriptions of the offenders to units in the field.
Click to expand...

That would seem to indicate that no useful description was provided at the time.
 
xjx388 said:
What he has to gain is obvious: sympathy and the attendant publicity. It also would serve to push a narrative about how bad Trump supporters are. He may have thought that the chances of the story being proven false were very slim, not considering the amount of surveillance cameras in the area.

OTOH, the risk of the story falling apart is not zero and the consequences would be devastating to his career. So is Smollett the kind of person who would take that risk? If he’s a rational person, I would say probably not.

I’m willing to take him at his word but the investigation so far has not corroborated his story. The fact that there is no attack on video, he didn’t stop in the lobby and mention anything to the security guard and the fact that he has so far refused to turn over his phone tends to cast some doubt in my mind. The fact that something obviously happened to him and the fact that making up a story could ruin him tend to support him.

So I can’t say that I have enough info to make up my mind either way. If pressed, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. I just hope that for society’s sake that he didn’t fake this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree with your last three paras but i have problems with the first. I see William Parcher's scenario working a little bit better here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom