horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavemonster said:
There are absolutely motivations for all of those claims.
Click to expand...

For sure, or they would not have been made. Point is, in most cases you don't know what those motivations are, yet the fact you don't know doesn't make them more credible.
 
MikeG said:
That pile of speculation in your quote fails to account for the witness on the other end of the phone at the time of the attacks who heard the "MAGA" shouts.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about this phone call as if it's a proven event that corroborates a claim.

In reality, it is itself another claim that also needs corroboration. It's premature to consider it as evidence of anything.
 
William Parcher said:
The leading hypothesis is the original claim which we simplify to "it happened like he says it did." The alternative hypotheses all are variations on "it didn't happen like he said it did and there is some form of hoaxing or lying."
Click to expand...

The fact is that there need be no 'alternative hypothesis" rather the counter is that the original hypothesis is not supported by objective evidence, the objective evidence reviewed so far does not support it (I'd say the tapes contradict it), and our hero is not fully cooperating.

The Superinintendo of the PO is supposed to talk about it today for some ******* reason
 
MikeG said:
When you've shown the need for an alternative hypothesis, we can set about discussing how you propose testing it.
Click to expand...

There is no need for an alternative hypothesis. The burden of proof rests solely on Smollett. No other hypothesis is needed, to observe that Smollett has not met his burden of proof. No other hypothesis is needed, to observe that Smollett has actually refused to do things that would provide even the most minimal amount of corroboration.

At this point, we can simply and reasonably say that while we do not know what really happened, there is no evidence that it happened the way Smollett says it did.

---

ETA: That being said, my alternative hypothesis is that a unicorn tried to gore him, but because Smollett is still a virgin, the magical beast's horn glanced off his chest, leaving him with a cracked rib. Since "this is MAGA country!" is marginally more plausible than "a unicorn mistook me for a fallen woman", that's the story he told to Jake the Condo Guy. Totally understandable, but what a tangled web we weave, etc.
 
Last edited:
baron said:
The point I'm making is that a lack of understanding as to why somebody would behave in a certain way is not a reason to suspect they did not.
Click to expand...

Its certainly not conclusive, but it is a hurdle. Every point were discussing is about plausibility and likelihood. The case that he is lying is being made all about speculation of motivations. The incredulity that attackers would be motivated to yell MAGA. The motives in not handing over a phone.

Clearly the case that he is lying would be far stronger if there were a plausible motivation for him to make up this story.

There are certainly possible reasons he may be lying, but without plausible reasons and only "smell test" sorts of evidence That's not a very strong argument.
 
MikeG said:
That pile of speculation in your quote fails to account for the witness on the other end of the phone at the time of the attacks who heard the "MAGA" shouts. You're being selective.

Why would you think the police are saying that Smollett is the victim, and not the accused?
Click to expand...



Because they are doing what the police should do: taking him at his word and investigating it as if he is telling the truth.

We are not the police. The facts as we know them fit different scenarios. Given the lack of video, the refusal to turn over the phone and various other things we know, some speculation is not out of line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
theprestige said:
The thing is, not turning over his records is also consistent with him being dishonest. This is unfortunate, because right now his story has zero corroboration. Not only that, but it has some elements that are consistent with him being dishonest, but not very consistent with him being honest.

What his story really needs right now is some substantive corroboration, and an action from him that is consistent with honesty and not with dishonesty.
Click to expand...



Right. A reasonable person who was the victim of a crime would cooperate fully. If I were in his position I might ask for a written assurance that the info on my phone would be held in confidence and that only the info needed for corroboration would be released.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PhantomWolf said:
I can understand not handing over the phone. A lot of younger people these days live on their phones, and being separated from them for even 15 minutes can start to cause then anxiety. Can you imagine how they would react to being without it for the time it took to get it back once it was considered Police Evidence? Heck I don't live on my phone, I use it maybe a couple of times a week, I don't have anything embarrassing on it, and I still wouldn't give it to the police as evidence because it's my phone and I might have need for it at some point before they return it. For someone that is on their phone nearly 24/7, that would be a huge concern.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, a person may have things on their phone that they don't want random people seeing or leaking to the public. Especially a famous person. Extra especially a famous gay person.
 
xjx388 said:
Right. A reasonable person who was the victim of a crime would cooperate fully. If I were in his position I might ask for a written assurance that the info on my phone would be held in confidence and that only the info needed for corroboration would be released.
Click to expand...
I'm almost in agreement with you.

If I were in his position, I might not trust a written agreement from the CPD to be worth more than the paper it's written on. Several people have offered what I think are good reasons to not turn over phone records, even if events happened as claimed.

But at the same time, if I'm not going to turn over the records and let the authorities corroborate my claim about the phone call, I'm also not going to pretend that my claim about the phone call corroborates my claim about the attack.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'll need to see your phone records before I accept this claim.
 
Cavemonster said:
Again we have this weird lopsided skepticism. The fact that no video cameras seem to have recorded his assailants or assault proves it didn't happen. Yet the fact that no cameras recorded him picking up a bike/scooter...
Click to expand...



Not the way I see it. The lack of video evidence simply opens the door to alternatives. More than that, it makes prosecution very difficult, especially for a hate crime. Having the phone record would corroborate the manager’s story. Having video would corroborate his.

The current facts we have don’t prove anything at all, which is the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
baron said:
As I say, he must have a high pain threshold to wander round for half an hour with a broken rib. He didn't phone for an ambulance, he didn't call police and he didn't inform the security guard. I think we can add 'broken rib' to the list of unproven and unlikely elements in this story.
Click to expand...

I broke ribs snowboarding. Made 2 more runs down the mountain afterward, they didn't feel broken right away. Wasn't sure they were until the next day. Went to work anyway.
 
William Parcher said:
The leading hypothesis is the original claim which we simplify to "it happened like he says it did." The alternative hypotheses all are variations on "it didn't happen like he said it did and there is some form of hoaxing or lying."
Click to expand...

Demonstrating that you know nothing of science. Alternative hypotheses are not "the first hypothesis is wrong", because that's what you're testing when you test the hypothesis.
 
theprestige said:
There is no need for an alternative hypothesis. The burden of proof rests solely on Smollett. No other hypothesis is needed, to observe that Smollett has not met his burden of proof. No other hypothesis is needed, to observe that Smollett has actually refused to do things that would provide even the most minimal amount of corroboration.

At this point, we can simply and reasonably say that while we do not know what really happened, there is no evidence that it happened the way Smollett says it did.

---

ETA: That being said, my alternative hypothesis is that a unicorn tried to gore him, but because Smollett is still a virgin, the magical beast's horn glanced off his chest, leaving him with a cracked rib. Since "this is MAGA country!" is marginally more plausible than "a unicorn mistook me for a fallen woman", that's the story he told to Jake the Condo Guy. Totally understandable, but what a tangled web we weave, etc.
Click to expand...
Burden of proof loses meaning without the existence of a null hypothesis.

Leading hypothesis or theory: It happened like he said.
Null hypothesis: It didn't happen like he said.

I think that you always have to include that alternative hypothesis. In many sciences the null hypothesis is the lead hypothesis by default.
 
I'm confused about the scenario here. I can see how he might have been attacked and leaked on by a cybernetic scooter during a one minute gap in the video coverage, but where did the scooter get a rope?
 
Interesting theory:

Jussie is big pals with Kamala
Went to her announcement that she is going to run for President
Kamala introduced some legislation about anti-lynching which has gone nowhere
Jussie ends up the subject of a "horrifying" "hate" 'attack" in "MAGA COUNTRY"
Kamala tweets out that he was lynched and that they should pass her anti-lynching legislation.
Her completely unnecessary legislation.

Now that is a theory with some sex appeal!
 
phunk said:
I broke ribs snowboarding. Made 2 more runs down the mountain afterward, they didn't feel broken right away. Wasn't sure they were until the next day. Went to work anyway.
Click to expand...

That's totally fair. But by the same token, you probably didn't go around saying you had a broken rib until after you found out you had a broken rib.

If Smollett's rib didn't feel particularly broken at the time, then how did the "broken rib" idea come up? On the other hand, if Smollett did have reason to think his rib was broken, then why didn't he seek medical assistance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom