Originally published at: Jussie Smollett claims he had sexual relationship with star witness against him | Boing Boing
…
3 Likes
I really don’t follow what you’re trying to say here.
If the witness (Bola) is not credible, it doesn’t really matter what he/they did or why, the testimony is worthless.
1 Like
Ok, but isn’t it pretty much always a given that “if jurors believe” the defendant that, almost by definition, that’s bad news for the prosecution’s case? But whatever. It’s obviously up to the jury to work this out, not me.
3 Likes
Many rape and sexual assault cases involve perpetrators who had previous relationships with the defendants, including sexual relationships. It would be unseemly to say that somehow “catastrophically” disqualifies them as witnesses.
4 Likes
Does it really though? I mean, if I was going to pay someone to beat me up I’d probably feel safer hiring someone I had a history with to make sure they didn’t take it too far rather than hiring some random thug.
5 Likes
Where do you even find a “random thug” if you aren’t already hanging out with people who do illicit activities? It sounds it would end up being every “tried to hire a hitman” story ever.
2 Likes
Also a key plot point in Dirty Harry.
1 Like
This is how you pay someone to beat you up.
Caution, kind of violent but effective and quite dangerous.
It’s not the (purported) previous sexual relationship that the problem, it’s that he was evasive about it, which gave Smollett the opportunity to disclose it himself (truthfully or otherwise) directly to the jury.
Of course the first place to check is rentathug.com. Brought to you by the same people that manage rentahitman.com.
Oftentimes other forms of evidence are strong enough that jurors may decide a believable defendant must be lying. But this case seems to hinge on the credibility of testimony, so Smollett getting to surprise jurors could be a big deal. Seems! Could! Maybe!
Having lived within the city limits of Chicago for 40 some years, his initial story immediately threw up red flags in my eyes. Some of the phrases that he claimed the attackers used rang false: For instance, he claimed that his “attackers” said ‘this is MAGA country.’ Anyone who has spent any time in the city of Chicago proper knows that it is a stronghold of Democratic politics. It is in no way MAGA country. Yes there are conservative areas in the suburbs but they were not in the suburbs. And now that his story has been exposed as highly suspect, Jussie is doubling down on his lies and claiming that one of the men he paid to “attack” him was his spurned lover. He is pathetic and desperate.
He sounds like the kind of person who would reduce you to an exhausted husk if you knew him socially.
US legal system, especially jury trials irritates me.
Having had a relationship beforehand does indeed offers ground for a different “assumptions”.
He was attacked in retaliation for a breakup.
A reason why he hired ‘his friend’.
The witness is jealous.
The wittness has no reason to lie as they were close.
But nothing of this should matter. If you are able to manipulate a trial just by adding “layers of rumour and gossip” so a jury gets preoccupied the legal system seems broken.
Which would not stop any proper MAGAt from claiming otherwise, given their extremely casual relationship with the truth.
Probably true, but the point is that Smollett was lying then, and is lying now. Most Chicagoans I know were immediately suspect of his claims.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
