Friday, February 22, 2019

Jussie Smollett: “I’m sorry”

In late January, 2019, an actor working for Fox Chicago, received an anonymous threatening letter. Approximately one week later, on January 29th, Jussie Smollett reported being attacked by two white "MAGA" hat wearing men who beat him, poured bleach on him, and put a noose around his neck to lynch him, while yelling racist and homophobic slurs, approximately 2am, as the actor went to Subway sandwich. 

Although implausible on the surface, Statement Analysis can only be done when communication is made. I noted that the language of Twitter messages made by Smollett included similar language of the alleged MAGA attackers. 

The first analysis came when the actor's manager spoke to media and stated that a "noose was placed on his neck."

Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated as the manager did not believe his own words. A noose is an instrument of cruelty and terror, as well as an instrument to end life via asphyxiation and/or broken neck. It is not "placed" (soft language) nor is it "on" but "around" the neck of the victim. 

There were absurdities reported that attended the report, including circumstantial, of which, although noted, does not let the analyst "know" what happened. These included:

a. two "MAGA" wearing hat killers who happened to be out in sub zero temperatures at 2AM, carrying bleach and a noose, who also just happened to recognize an obscure actor that most of us had never heard of before this event. 

b. that the actor "fought back" but managed to hang on to his subway sandwich after the attempted murder via lynching

c. that he did not report this for an extended period of time

d. that he was on the phone with his manager at 2am 

e. that he kept the instrument of death upon his neck and did not instinctively (and even violently) thrust it from himself, in fear, disgust and trauma 

In spite of this, Politicians, Hollywood Elite and main stream media blamed Donald Trump and his supporters for this "hateful, racist, and homophobic" event, including hyperbolic headlines and commentary condemning a significant percentage of the U.S. population. 

Next, Jussie Smollett gave an interview to Robin Roberts, of Good Morning America in which he did not assert what happened to him, nor did he assert that he told the truth. 

This allows us to "know" what happened.  The interview was reported to have been granted to Good Morning America and specifically given to Robin Roberts. Detailed analysis of this interview is forthcoming. It is valuable not only for deception detection training, but for instruction in Analytical Interviewing. 

Our words reveal us.  Specifically, our words reveal four elements:

1. Our background

2. Our experiences in life
3. Our motive
4. Our dominant personality traits

In the upcoming analysis, focus will be upon the Interviewer, Robin Roberts, and what statement analysis reveals about her, just as it does in deception detection of the subject, Smollett. 

Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated

After this conclusion, two suspects were arrested in the assault, causing the analysis to appear to be errant. 

Yet victims of assault, including those suffering trauma, linguistically commit to what happened because it happened to them personally. It is not a news story but an event of an intrusive nature. 

Then, Smollett responded expressing surprise that the two attackers knew him. The implication was that he would allow them to be tried for the attack. 

Chicago police countered by allowing Smollett to engage his victim status to keep talking, while they held the two Nigerian-American brothers to sit in jail for the full 48 hours without charge. By hour 47, their contemplation was sufficient and they told police that Jussie Smollett hired them for this hoax in order to obtain attention for himself that he might continue his slander of President Trump and exchange his status for money from Fox. 

Smollett's attorney released a statement blaming the media for Smollett's plight, but did not deny the action. 

Reliable Denial 

In law enforcement training, teaching the "Reliable Denial" can be a challenge. 


It is because law enforcement professionals who begin their careers in patrol become so accustomed to hearing lies, that they can dismiss all.

Few detectives, early on, acknowledge the value of the time in patrol.  Patrol officers gain invaluable insight in interview training.  Each stop is an interview. 

More so:

Each traffic stop is dangerous. There is an incessant risk, from any and every traffic stop, of immediate harm or death. This became heightened when politicians used racism as a means of exploitation; portraying police, around the nation, of having entered into a conspiracy to risk their own lives, careers and freedom, just to kill a black. 

It successfully gained politicians votes, while it led to violence and the deaths of police officers and continues to divide. It is the wake in which Jussie Smollett sought to imitate the race baiting and tribal political habits of successful politicians: personal gain from the harm of others. 

Question: What does this incessant patrol danger have to do with training?

Answer: Much 

The hormonal response to said danger is significant and as such, it attends memory, leading to a deep impression. There are "interviews" (each conversation or interaction is an interview) that detectives can recall decades later, long after forgetting much else.  Hormonal accompaniment increases recall. This is why when James Comey and Andrew McCabe claimed to have forgotten some of the most hormonally compelling information of modern American history, they are lying. 

There is a downside that officers recognize and endure. 

The hormonal increase during the traffic stop becomes tolerated or "routine."

Yet, the increase of stress hormones, although overcome through time, experience and training, take its toll on the immune system, physical and mental health of the officers. Often the female and male officers' bodies respond differently, but both suffer, as do everyone who loves them. 

The cost is high, yet society values entertainers far more than law enforcement, including entertainers who make more in a week than one who risks his or her life may make in a year. 

Smollett knew the landscape of victim status, and ingratiated himself by invoking not only symbols (noose) but language ("Muslim, black") and repeated references to himself. 

Good Morning America's Robin Roberts did not do a "softball interview" with Smollett. The analysis will reveal more. 

In a seminar, the Reliable Denial is taught, explained, exampled and challenged. 

The Reliable Denial has three elements. Where there are more than three, or less than three, the subject may be telling the truth, but we must, for the purpose of getting to the truth, not consider it in the classification of "Reliable Denial."  It may be "unreliable" or the analyst may sparse this with "not reliable", with consideration that although it is not reliable, there is the thought that he still may have not "done it."

1. The pronoun "I"

2. The past tense "did not" or "didn't" (the Reid Technique, a fine training system, differentiates between these two. The research does not bear it, however. Either is acceptable, thought the point of "informal" is contextually important). 
3. The allegation specified. 

Some examples:

"I did not steal your money" is a strong denial. Yet, the morally charged word "steal" must be examined. 

Few thieves ever "steal" in their verbalized perception of reality.  They "take", "reimburse" or even the now popular "reparations" of perceived wrongs by one's ancestors by another's ancestors, whether true or not. 


The assertion of truth is powerful.

If the same person, accused of theft, says while freely choosing his own words, "I did not take your money" and is asked,

"Why should I believe you?and answers, "Because I told the truth" using 


"told" (or "telling")

and "truth"

it is 99% (or higher) reliable. 

The only exception is found in parroting the words of another, which is why it is when one is freely speaking. 

"Are you telling me the truth?"

"I am telling you the truth" is reduced reliability because it is parroting back one's own words. The subject may be truthful, but we cannot "know" with the certainty of this science.

Now when someone adds a great deal of information to their Reliable Denial, it is to add in a new element. 

When Gov. Chris Christie issued his denial on "Bridgegate", he spoke for more than 40 minutes before making the denial. This, alone, designates "Unreliable" in analysis. 

Here are some examples of denials that we do not accept as "Reliable"

"I would never..." uses both "would" (conditional/future) and "never" which avoids a specific date and time.  

"Never" is not reliable, particularly when a specific event on a specific date is alleged. If no date is given, the subject is likely to use "never" as it spans time. 

See Judge Kavanaugh analysis on You Tube here. 

"Didn't take your money" drops the pronoun "I" like a school boy caught by mom.

"We didn't; do that..." when one, alone is alleged, is to violate the first element by seeking the psychological cover of others.  This, too, is the proverbial school boy who says, 

"but Mom, everybody was doing it and she only picked on me!"

This not only avoids issuing a denial but:

a. impeaches the integrity of the teacher which is a tangent when unchecked by the parent, may lead to a life long habit 

b. seeks to mitigate guilt of personal responsibility under the cover of a crowd. 

c. Portrays himself, while guilty, as a victim. 

The above child may have a lucrative career in politics or journalism. 

We also flag any need for "divine witness" as a signal of one who is habitually deceptive:

"I swear to God on my mother's grave that I did not take your money." Here, the person reveals habitual deception and a need to persuade. It may very well be that he did not take the money but he has lied so often that he has a need to persuade that this time, he is truthful. 

When new analysts are asked to use a search engine to learn more about the Reliable Denial, there is a powerful awakening that takes place. 

They look to famous cases, in particular, with headlines that blare, "So and So Denies Killing" only to learn:

So and So did not deny anything. 

He claimed he was innocent, which is judicially true. 

He claimed that this is something he "would never" do.

He claimed nothing because he was not in the sentence: "Did not murder her."  Who did not murder her?  After 40 years of successfully processing and using the pronoun "I" millions of times, he suddenly lost the ability to employ it?

No, he is psychologically removing himself from the denial. 

The outright deceptive denial is rare as it causes the subject, including those labeled sociopaths or sociopathic (a title most every criminal is given, which does not assist in analysis, investigation, or even in the interview - interrogation process, but sounds fascinating) who do not wish to be caught. One may lack a conscience, but one may still have the instincts of survival or self preservation. 

According to TMZ, Smollett arrived for work after posting bail and made this statement to his peers. 


This is a denial that we may use for analysis:


The phrase "I'm sorry" enters the language of the polite and the language of the guilty. We flag it, just the same, in all statements for possible deception. We then ask,

"What is the context of its use?"

Here, the subject has just come from jail and court and stands accused of a multitude of crimes, including possible federal (see analysis of the anonymous threatening letter)

"I'm sorry" may enter the language of guilt, often in context of being caught or fear of being caught. It is a form of "ingratiation" of which one seeks to "mend" that which is broken. 

Recall Casey Anthony, in an emergency 911 call, being put on the phone by her mother, Cindy.  Why?  Because her daughter has been "missing" for almost a month. Casey used it as a pause in order to think of what to answer, yet it revealed, in context, guilt of having murdered her child for the sake of convenience. 

""I'm sorry" begins as a priority for Smollett. 

He is sorry for putting them through this and not taking calls, as if there would be an expectation that while being in jail, he would be taking calls. This is his verbalized perception of reality. It tells us much. 

1. The "good guy principle."  

It is as if he, while in handcuffs and behind bars, was thinking that it was impolite for him to not answer his cell phone, which was not in his possession. It is the need to portray oneself in a positive light that indicates the contrary. 

It is the wording of a manipulative personality.  

The "good guy principle" is flagged in statements. Scott Peterson portrayed himself as a good person in a "glorious" marriage. We see the same in guilty subjects who "search" for the missing person or child. The need to inflate one's own worth is always note worthy but it is essential to note in criminal analysis: especially in preparation for the interview and interrogation. 

Repetition = importance. 

Anything repeated is sensitive information. Is this being "sorry" genuine? 

I wanted to say I’m sorry 

Does he say he is sorry here?

He does not. 

He began with the priority of what he "wanted to say", which is a minor psychological distancing from what he just said. This is to affirm the disingenuous politeness of not returning phone calls during the biggest crisis of life. 

It is also a form of denial, where being arrested, lambasted by police and having to post bond to get free, is "no big deal" (minimization as if routine, yet still disrupted his usual politeness and expediency in returning calls or text messages). 

He needs to explain why he is "sorry": 

and, you know me, 

The "800 lb gorilla" in the room is, "you fabricated this for money?  You were willing for 2 white males to be arrested? You were going to throw two cast members under the bus? You used up more than 2 dozen police investigators' man hours while dozens of people die each weekend here, via murder?" and so on. 

We need him to say, "I did not fabricate this. I was attacked" followed by 
"I told the truth" or "I am telling the truth."  

In the Good Morning America interview, he offered the possibility that he did not tell the truth with, "if" it was a lie. He then looked upon this assertion and said, "it is the truth."

He did not affirm that he told the truth or even that the attack was truth, but that his hypothetical lie was the truth. 

Statement  Analysis believes the words and allows the words to guide us. 

That it was a possible lie was true. 

"You know me", contextually, the good guy who is so humble, he never fails to not call you back. This need to be seen as the gentle, loving, anti-hate advocate for peace that was incessantly in his twitter feed tells us the very opposite:

greedy, racist, contempt for others...

Will he simply say, "I didn't make this up"?

This next line is far more than "Unreliable Denial" but valuable contextual insight into who he is: 

I would never do this to any of you, 

a. "would" is to violate component number two of the Reliable Denial

b. "never" is to also violate the Reliable Denial because this happened on a specific night, at a specific time, at a specific location with specific players. 

Yet his qualification is revelatory:

He would never do this, that is, the exploitative hoax, to his fellow cast members. 

He'd do it to "MAGA, Muslims, Blacks" and even to homosexuals who may experience genuine assaults, but he would not do this to the cast members on the set where he has gained his wealth. 

I believe him. 

This is his ethical and moral standard. 

It is to indicate his contempt for his audience; no different than any other habitual liar who learned from an early age that he is smarter than his audience. 

This is why kindergarten teachers used to, before fear of lawsuit or violent backlash, tell parents when (not if) our children lied. It was to allow us to correct our children "early" before it does damage to the child and to society. 

This is why Jussie Smollett's family has attacked the public for not believing him.  

This is a form of elitist contempt.  He would not do this to fellow performers; only to the rest of us. 

It is very likely that Smollett believed, even if caught, he would be applauded for "all the homophobic racist attacks that did not get prosecuted."

He had the support of Kamala Harris and others, including the non-stop media coverage blaming "MAGA" for "racism" and "violence" that went suddenly silent when he was arrested. 

The media provides cover for deceptive narrative. 

Why wouldn't Jussie do this to them?

you are my family. 

The hypocrisy is affirmed. 

When Smollett was arrested for driving under the influence, he lied to police about his name. 

Later, when signing the agreement to return to court, he forged the name, affirming the lie he gave police. 

He gave his brother's name. 

This is the callousness of one who claims to "love" and "heal" the "world" (grandiose) 

Lastly, we see further insight into his habitual deception 

I swear to God, I did not do this.

a. The need for divine witness is to deny the psychological "wall of truth" that protects the de facto innocent.

b. "I did not do this" begins strong:

1.  The pronoun "I" is used
2. The past tense "did not" is used

What of our 3rd component?

"this" avoids addressing the specific allegation. 

It violates the 3rd component where the allegation must be addressed. It is often used by clever, manipulative and talented deceivers who know what is expected by the audience and what to use to "split the difference" between the internal stress of a direct lie and leaving the audience bereft of the denial they longed to hear. It is an emotional manipulator who is likely to be above average intelligence. 

It is to avoid the psychological confrontation of a direct lie. 

Smollett cost the city of Chicago a great deal.  He put police under the pressure of "political correctness"; money expenditure and a city with the strictest gun laws in the nation has routine murders of which detectives had to neglect due to the narcissist greedy racist elitist.  

Much credit, however, is due to CPD. They faced enormous pressure from media and Hollywood to blame President Trump and all who voted for him for the event. 

Smollett's attorneys revealed their own belief in his guilt within their statement and the politicians who rushed to condemn half of America for this, have gone silent, along with main stream media. 

The unnecessary moralizing, via tweets or statements, is something that should be read with understanding. Two elements presence should alert readers:

 Is this an unnecessary sermon?

"There's no excuse for elder abuse" makes for a great bumper sticker. Yet, is there a large group of Americans calling for more elder abuse? More rape of innocents? More sexual assaults? It is "unnecessary" in analysis making it of higher importance to the subject. 

The greater the intensity and frequency of the unnecessary moralizing the greater consider of possible guilt projection it should be given. 

Like the great messages of "women's rights" by Harvey Weinstein, revealing guilt, so it is that patrol cops receive training in diversion, tangent deception, deflection, victim status and other tactics that they learn to recognize in training. Their backgrounds end up serving them so well that they learn to express gratitude for the early years of on the ground lessons.  

The "voice of love" becomes the symbol of greed, hate, racism and elitist contempt. 

The media, politicians and Hollywood elite may be shocked, but cops aren't.  

From his above words and analysis,  we may consider how he might battle his attorneys, for control of his defense. 

If justice is not served, "fake hate" will continue to strengthen, further dividing Americans. 

"I'm sorry"?

In deed. 

The regret of one caught who wishes to salvage his employment, reputation and freedom. 

For training in Deception Detection for law enforcement, military, intelligence, business, social sciences and others, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services, as well as the short examples provided at You Tube. 

Statement Analysis is the science of deception detection with the expectation of at or near 100% accuracy. 


Martina said...

"I’m sorry I’ve put you all through this and not answered any calls."
Aside from the aspect of politeness that you described Peter, I see another aspect - the "all important constant receiver of important phone calls", another extension of his importance.

"I would never do this to any of you, you are my family."
They might choose to rather not be part of his family, considering that he gave his brother's name when DUI, twice. He did not care a bit about throwing his brother under the bus.

The psychology, of course, is fascinating, as the whole world almost was watching him, and asked the question: will he? Will he admit to his part in this, claim exhaustion, and check himself into a clinic? Or will he desperately cling to the last shreds of his story, and deny, deny, deny, even when nothing is left to deny?
He seems to be going the second route.

Anonymous said...

"I've put you all through this" -> isn't that taking responsibility for what happened? Or does he think he put his colleagues through a terrible ordeal simply because he didn't answer their calls?


Anonymous said...

The unanswered phone calls may refer to that Smollet disappeared for days, before he turned himself in.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I know, but if Jussie wanted to address his radio silence he could have simply said: "Sorry I didn't answer your calls"/"Sorry you couldn't reach me"/"Sorry I didn't call back", etc. He didn't. He added some words: "I'm sorry I've put you all through this and not answered calls". If his intention was merely to say he was sorry for not answering calls, the words “I’ve put you all through this” seem unnecessary. Moreover, the fact that he adds “and” (“and not answered calls) gives me the impression that he separates two things for which he is sorry. One: the fact that he put them all through this. Two: the fact that he didn’t answered calls.

In any case, if Jussie was innocent, I would expect his first words (assuming these were his first words to his colleagues) to address this. I don’t think in that case unanswered calls would be of primary importance. I would expect him to say something like: "You guys, this is a nightmare, I didn't write the letter, I didn't stage the attack. I’m falsely accused. " Jussie, however, tells us he did something for which he is sorry. To me it sounds like a sort of confession.


Martina said...


Yes, another aspect to this sentence, Autumn! He could feel that this is an unbearable hardship for his colleagues.

It boggles the mind that he is unwilling or unable to confess and ask for forgiveness - of course, people that have committed worse crimes have refused to confess, but in his case, forgiveness could have still been asked for, but it's too late now.

For the list of things that went terribly wrong in 2019, I nominate Smolletts plan to get a raise from a tv show.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous I was addressing that the unanswered phonecalls in the analysis is connected to Smollet being in jail without his phone (rubbish). I think he talks about the days before.

Phoenix1966 said...

"We're told he's changed his number because certain pissed off cast members were blowing up his phone. He's only given his new number to the people still in his corner." (source -

Phoenix1966 said...

Meant to add, that article I referenced did not say when he changed his number, but I would hazard a guess it was the moment he was officially charged (if not sooner).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I see what you mean now (thought you reacted to my comment).

Martina, I agree. But confessing would be admitting that he is a ruthless, money-grubbing liar willing to endanger others, instigate race riots, take police resources away from real victims, etc. That is not how Jussie sees himself at all. I think he has grandiose ideas about himself as the savior of the "oppressed" black/gay community, the great benefactor who spreads love. He probably thinks his actions were justified because he had the right intentions (in his mind). One thing I have a hard time believing is that he did this to get a raise. A fake letter and attack seem like a very roundabout, cumbersome, risky and unsure way to get a raise. Why not just ask for it. And: he gives away large sums of money each year so there doesn't seem to be a lack of it. I think his motives may have (also) been political. He just didn’t want the Nigerian brothers to know that and gave them another reason.


Anonymous said...


We only have the policechief's word for that the motive should be to get a raise. In the same briefing he said that they hadn't talked with Smollett about the case and it speaks to the strange minds of journalists, that nobody asked the pc how he knew of that motive. It isn't congruent with the testimonies from the Nigerian brothers eather. They claim that the motive was that Smollet was pissed because his anonymous letter didn't get more publicity. The attack stunt seems a logical step up - I can believe that; both done for the "higher course"; to become a hero.

Anonymous said...

What's struck me from the start of this is the absolute narcissism at work in Smollett. How self-centered and self-important do you have to be to think merely being upset that you don't think you make enough money ($65k per episode; ie, a week's work or so) entitles you to this level of response? The contempt Smollett has for every other person than himself is stark. The idea that he seemed to think that this ridiculous hair-brained stupid scheme would ACTUALLY BE BELIVED is laughable. Because he's black and gay, and EVERYONE KNOWS white Trump supporters are on the prowl constantly for black gay men to prey upon...


Reports indicated the Chicago PD put 10-12 experienced detectives on this case. These would be likely violent crimes detectives with 20+ years experience each. In a city like Chicago, I can only assume a violent crimes detective has at least 30 or more cases on his plate at any given time; some 'hotter' than others, some awaiting prosecution, some with additional leads to get done, etc. That means that these 10-12 detective had to put on the back burner a total of 300-360 cases to run down this high profile lie; all while still making court apperances, depositions, processing evidence, Grand Jury testimony, etc, all the things cops also do when they aren't working cases. I wonder how many rape victims' cases weren't worked because of this? I wonder how many of the black murder victims' cases were put on hold? How many child sex crimes/child porn cases were shelved? All because this arrogant self-important ass needed to have us all pay attention to him and applaud him for being a 'warrior victim'... and demand he get a higher salary apparently. I hope the reports I've heard that the city may attempt to recover the costs of the investigation and expenditure of tax payer resources from Smollett actually happens.

And Smollett thinks the core issue anyone gives a damn about at this point is that he didn't call them back??? Unblieveable... yet apparently true!

Anonymous said...

"And Smollett thinks the core issue anyone gives a damn about at this point is that he didn't call them back??? "I don't think that's why he says it".

Fmbe said...

I can't get past the way whoever (yrs) created the threatening letter took the time to include Jussie's hairstyle on the stick figure. You literally couldn't make this stuff up

Anonymous said...

Is he a sociopath?

GeekRad said...

I am waiting for the letter shoe to drop. I still do not see a tree. He has knowledge of the letter. I need to listen to the interview again.
On another topic, the The line pleaded guilty. I was sure they were going to go with a mental case in her.

GeekRad said...

The Turpins pleaded guilty. Stupid smart device.

tania cadogan said...

Now come the excuses

























tania cadogan said...






"I'm left hanging my head asking why.




















tania cadogan said...
















Sources told website TMZ the trio even rehearsed  the  assault.


Let's start with drugs, then alcohol.
He will go into rehab for however long, perhaps claiming exhaustion.

I wonder what his supporters, who were very vocal when his story about an alleged attack broke, will say and do?
Will he confess to the whole thing or try and deny it?

tania cadogan said...

off topic

MAKING A Murderer’s Steven Avery could be set free if bone fragments from victim Teresa Halbach prove she was killed elsewhere, his lawyer has claimed.

Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey are serving life in prison for the 2005 murder of Halbach in which she was kidnapped then taken to his home, sexually assaulted and tortured before being shot.

The two men then burned her body and attempted to destroy the charred remains, according to the prosecution case.

However, Avery is fighting a long-running and high-profile legal battle to get his murder conviction quashed, and his lawyer Kathleen Zellner now claims if bone fragments found at a third location are those of Halbach then it undermines the prosecutor's assertion that she was killed at Avery’s property.

Zellner maintains a 2011 report shows bone fragments were returned to the Halbach family, but the defence wasn’t notified, Fox 11 news reports.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice has now said that bones kept in the case were returned to the Halbach family.

“This admission proves these bone fragments were returned to the family and it is undisputed there was no notice given to Steven Avery or his attorneys and that violates Wisconsin law,” Zellner told Newsweek.

Avery is currently serving his sentence at Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution and continues to maintain his innocence.


Photographer Halbach disappeared in 2005 after visiting the Avery family salvage yard in Twin Rivers.

She was last known to have met Avery at his home on the grounds of his Auto Salvage business to take a picture of a minivan he was trying to sell.

Her vehicle was found part-hidden in his salvage yard and bloodstains recovered from its interior matched Avery's DNA.

The young woman's charred bone fragments were later found in a burn pit near Avery's home.

He was arrested and charged with Halbach's murder, kidnapping, sexual assault and mutilation of a corpse on November 11, 2005.

The prosecution claimed he invited his 16-year-old nephew Dassey into his home to sexually assault and torture her.

In 1985, Avery was falsely convicted of sexually assaulting a young, female jogger.

It took 18 years for his conviction to be overturned and he was given a £305,000 payout in compensation.

However, he was re-arrested and charged with Teresa Halbach's murder, kidnapping, sexual assault and mutilation of a corpse on November 11, 2005.

BallBounces said...

Smollett uses the word "this" several times without defining it. Its meaning seems to change based on context.

Anonymous said...

Jussie Smollett's mother Janet is a former Black Panther, and remains a close friend of Angela Davis. According to the NYT, the family spent Mother's Day with Davis several times. In 1970 Angela Davis purchased a shotgun, and other weapons two days before they were used in an armed take over of a courtroom in Marin County, CA. The judge and three black men died in the incident. After being on the FBI 10 most wanted list, Angela Davis was arrested and later found not guilty of foreknowledge of the crime.

Kamala Harris reportedly met with Smollett at a fundraiser in CA for her Presidential campaign days before the staged attack. Her legislation at the time was to add enhanced penalties for lynching.

Jussie Smollett's motivation seem political and ideological instead of financial to me.

New England Water Blog said...

Weird embedded confession "The man this did not happen to"

Anonymous said...

What on earth is this mans birth certificate name?

Anonymous said...

You know,
Aren't we all seeing now exactly what a lousy actor this guy is?

rob said...

Every time (and it's quite often) we get a fake hate case, it's so unbelievable, nobody believes it. But it keeps happening. The punishment for this type of crime needs to be increased. They make up a lie, do some type on light bodily harm to themselves and go on tv, or go-fund-me, or both.
Where is the out cry? where is the smack down? This isn't going to stop, it's going to increase.

Anonymous said...

Jussie, while being attacked said, "ouch! Dude, Ssstop hitting me ssso hard. Maybe you could hit me sssomewhere besidesss the face!"

John mcgowan said...

Brilliant Article!

tania cadogan said...

off topic

The case of a Michigan transgender activist charged with setting his home ablaze -- with five pets inside -- and lying about it is getting renewed attention amid similar hoax allegations leveled at "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett, highlighting high-profile instances in which cops preparing to investigate a hate crime end up investigating the supposed victim.

When Nikki Joly’s two-story home in Jackson, Mich. went up in flames in August 2017, it grabbed the attention of local newspapers and other concerned citizens in the community, some of whom initially worried the fire could have been intentionally set and may have been a hate crime against the outspoken gay rights campaigner.

More than a year later, however, the 54-year-old Joly faces a charge of one felony count of first-degree arson for the Aug. 10, 2017 fire that destroyed his home and killed his two German shepherds and three cats.

At the time, coverage of the case was almost entirely limited to local media.

Then, the Jussie Smollett story broke.

The 36-year-old Smollett is accused of orchestrating an elaborate hoax via two “bogus” hate crimes – one employing an alleged attack, and one involving a threatening letter and mysterious (but ultimately harmless) white powder – all in order to secure a pay raise. He was charged in Chicago with felony disorderly conduct last week and remains free on bail.

But Joly’s attorney is pushing back on the comparisons to Smollett, saying the case against the transgender man was never touted or investigated as a hate crime.

Elmer Hitt, director of police and fire services in Jackson, told Fox News on Tuesday that some in the community – as well as the police investigators – considered the possibility the fire may have been a hate crime, it's just that, ultimately, the investigation led them to look at the blaze as arson.

“It was investigated as arson with the potential, initially, of it being a hate crime,” Hitt said.

Joly’s attorney, Andrew Abood, told Fox News that throughout the investigation and recent court proceedings, Joly never claimed the fire was a hate crime.

“There is no comparison. In [the Smollett] case, two people were paid by the actor. Our client never said it was a hate crime,” Abood said when reached over the phone on Tuesday. “We have maintained all along and he asserted through four hours of interrogation with the FBI that he did not start the fire."

But authorities disagreed. Joly was arrested and charged in October, shocking his supporters.

“It’s embarrassing,” Travis Trombley, a gay resident who fought for an anti-discrimination ordinance that Joly championed for years in Jackson, the Detroit News. “How do you do it to the community you have put so much effort into helping?”

Joly had been touted for his relentless 18-year effort to pass the local anti-discrimination law designed to protect members of the LGBT community and minorities in Jackson.

“There is no space for hate and ultimately, love will win," Joly told MLive in an extensive profile last year after he was named Jackson’s Citizen of the Year. "I believe that, 99 percent of the time."

Yet, only months after that profile, officials say Joly traded love for a lighter, starting the fire at the home he shared with his longtime partner, Chris Moore.

No one was home at the time and traces of gasoline were later found in five rooms on the first floor.

A neighbor, identified in a police report as Robert Tulloch, was among the first people interviewed after the fire.

tania cadogan said...


According to the Detroit News, Tulloch was questioned about his whereabouts because he had sent a threatening letter to the city manager and council objecting to plans to raise a rainbow flag at a city park as part of pride events planned for later that month.

“That is an in-your-face declaration and will be met with a violent response,” the email read in part, police said.

However, Tulloch’s whereabouts at the time of the fire – he was making a deposit at a bank drive-thru – were confirmed and he was cleared.

As they investigated further, Jackson police began to zero-in on a new suspect: Joly.

According to the Detroit News, Joly told police he bought $10 worth of gasoline the morning of the fire to mow the lawn. When it got too hot to continue, he stopped and went to work at St. Johns United Church of Christ, where the Jackson Pride Center was located.

While at work, Joly received a phone call from Moore, who said she had forgotten her lunch at home and wondered if Joly could bring it over to her.

That call was at 1:02 p.m., police said.

Joly told police he returned to the home and went inside for a minute or two before leaving again. The fire was first reported by neighbors at 1:16 p.m.

Police Det. Aaron Grove wrote in his report the sequence of events made it difficult for anyone but Joly to set the fire.

“The timeline shows a window of less than five minutes for another person to enter the residence, splash gasoline around, ignite the fire and then leave without being [seen],” he wrote.

Two weeks after the fire, Joly was interviewed by city police and two FBI agents. He didn’t admit to setting the blaze, but didn’t deny it either, the Detroit News reported.

Hitt declined to offer a motive for the house fire, saying it would be made public by the prosecution at trial.

A police investigation report, however, suggests a possible reason for the arson could have been Joly’s apparent frustration with the recent lack of controversy and protests surrounding gay rights in Jackson after the passage of the non-discrimination law, the Detroit News reported.

Abood told Fox News on Tuesday that police are basing their case against Joly only on coincidence, on a “hunch.”

“It is simply a matter of coincidence and that is tantamount to a hunch and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

Regardless of the outcome in the Smollett and Joly cases, experts said when presumed victims of hate crimes are actually the perpetrators, it is “terrible” for social movements, specifically for people “facing real hate crimes.”

“Real hate crimes are on the rise,” Graham Cassano, associate professor of sociology at Oakland University, told the Detroit Free Press on Monday. “But as these crimes increase and become publicized, it’s not surprising to me that people would take the opportunity to use this to their advantage and fabricate hate crimes.”

Cassano added: "When someone comes along and fabricates a hate crime it calls into question people who have really experienced these things. It's absolutely awful. It really, to my mind, is incomprehensible."

The most recent stats from the FBI showed 7,106 hate crimes in 2017, up 17 percent from the year before. Of those crimes, nearly 60 percent of the victims were targeted because of race and ethnicity and nearly 16 percent because of sexual orientation.

Anonymous said...

"Form requires you to list your contracts or payments originating from a foreign government, uh not from all foreign entities. We said we would give you a chance to consult with your attorneys. Have you done that, and do you have any additional information?"

Michael Cohen response:
"My four attorneys continue to believe as they did before that the language of the Truth & Testimony Form, which I was given and signed right before this hearing, and which requires disclosure of any contracts or payments from foreign governments in the last two years, did not apply to my work for BTA Bank, which is Kazakh owner entity. They advised that had entities been intended for disclosure, that word would have been in the disclosure definition. However, if the committee's counsel has a different view, that I should disclose my contract with BTA Bank, we'd be willing to do that."

“Um, I want to understand clearly. You are, you sought the advice of your counsel. Is that correct?”

“That’s correct.”

“And your counsel advised you to say what you just said. Is that right?”

“That’s correct.”

“And you know that to be the truth, is that right?”

“Yes, Sir.”

Anonymous said...

Mr. Meadows:
“Uh, uh, I thank the chairman for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, instead of making points or order and going back and forth on this, perhaps a way to solve this is for the chairman to request Mr. Cohen to give to this committee all the foreign payments that he has received over the last two years, whether they’re an entity or a government, because we have strong belief, Mr. Chairman, there’s over nine-hundred-thousand dollars that came from the government of Kazakhstan on behalf of Mr. Cohen, and it it is either the truth, the whole truth or nothing but the truth, and and the rules, Mr. Mr. Chair Chairman uh really look at foreign payments that come from or with foreign governments. And and and the bank he’s talking about is owned 81% by the Kazakhstan government.”

“Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, and then we’re going to move on. Um, what I will take, I would, first of all, let me be clear. Uh, I said to Mr. Cohen, uh, that if he came in here and lied, I would nail him to the cross. Didn’t I?”


“Did I tell you that?”

“Yes, yes you did more than once.”

“Alright. Um, so if there’s any ambiguity, I want that to be cleared up. I have no problem working with you to make sure that’s straightened out - cause I don’t want it to be a thing where he thinks one thing and we think one thing, and we can we can clear that up. Am I right? Alright. We have a number of members that have been waiting.”

Mr. Jordan:
“Just on that subject Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we should limit it just to the BTA Bank which has the affiliation with Kazakhstan, I think we should also look at Korea Aerospace Industries, one of his other clients, and any other client that’s foreign that may have some connection to that respective country’s government. I hope him and his attorneys look at all those and we get the —- exactly right as Mr. Meadows wants.”

“Reclaiming my time, uh we will take that certainly under advisement that you are uh I’m a man of my word uh we will do we will work with you and see what we can uh do to come up with that. I don’t think that is an unreasonable request. Uhmmm Mr. Khanna. Hellooooo? Khanna? Yes, yes.

Mr. Khanna:
Mr. Cohen, I want to focus my questions on the smoking-gun document you have provided this committee. This document is compelling evidence of federal and state crimes, including financial fraud. You provided this committee with a check from President Donald J. Trump’s revocable trust account which is marked as exhibit 5B. It is a check for thirty-five thousand dollars, and it is dated March 17, 2017, after the president took office. It’s right now on the screen. Do you see it, Sir?

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Khanna:
To be clear, the Trump Revocable Trust is the trust the president setup to hold his assets after he became president. Is that correct?

I believe so.

Mr. Khanna:
Do you know why you were paid from the Trump’s Trust, as opposed to the presidents personal account?

I don’t know the answer to that.

Mr. Khanna:
Did you think it was odd that he paid you once from his personal account, and then he’s paying you through the (scheme for trust???)?

I’ll be honest, I was just happy to get the check.

Anonymous said...

Travel Like Abram (General Conference)




