Judge to allow cameras at next court hearing on...Jussie Smollett's criminal charges

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I predict the judge will throw this mess out before it gets started because there is no substance behind the claims and the other two are getting away seemingly free of charge right now even though they hold the only proven guilt by admittance in this case and their testimony should not have absolved them completely.

I bet this will not happen. Hey, how about a bet. How about if the case is thrown out like you said I stay off ATS for a month, and if the case is not thrown out you have to stay ATS free for a month.

a reply to: neutronflux

Oh no, I knew what you were angling for. But since my initial comment was cited as somehow proving the call in question I felt it was worth clarifying the comment further.

I haven’t seen a direct quote from the manager about the call, and as far as I know the logs haven’t been publicly released.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thankfully that member will no longer plague us with this account, I would not be surprised to see a new member soon with strangely similar arguments and a decided aversion to posting links of any kind however.

Elsewhere, Rosanne Barr let loose on Smollett and Alyssa Milano:

“Could you imagine if he was white?” Barr asked. “And he said he was white and two black guys beat him up? Can you imagine what would happen to that guy?”

The former “Roseanne” star went on to talk about how a culture of identity politics has lead to people like her losing work over a racist tweet and people like Smollett, who may have committed genuine crimes, getting the same vitriol in the public eye. After advocating for people to be without a political party, she called out one star in particular.

“Alyssa Milano, I just want to say this about her kind of people that allow themselves to be used to hurt other people. When they do wake up all the way, I’m not going to forgive them, and I don’t think any of us should,” Barr said. “It’s either like walk away now or f--- off because you’re hurting a lot of people and not thinking and just going along to get along and you thought you’d make a name by hurting other people and you’re not going to be forgiven.”

Ro seanne Barr talks Jussie Smollett, calls out Alyssa Milano and Democrats: 'You're not going to be forgiven'

As TheRedneck said in his post, it matters not one whit what any of us say, what matters is what both sides attorneys present in court and what the people who sit on the jury think. If cameras are allowed to continue to be present, we will get to see it unfold and also see what other evidence CPD has given to the DAs with which to make their case.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I truly hope this is televised. It seems many people need to see what actually happens in a courtroom. It's dry, boring, repetitive, and frankly, exhausting. It is the exact opposite, it seems, of what people think it is. I tried to avoid the OJ Simpson mess like the plague, but this one... this one I want to see.

As for Roseanne, I have to take exception to her statement. Anyone can repent, and it is wrong to withhold forgiveness.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I truly hope this is televised. It seems many people need to see what actually happens in a courtroom. It's dry, boring, repetitive, and frankly, exhausting. It is the exact opposite, it seems, of what people think it is. I tried to avoid the OJ Simpson mess like the plague, but this one... this one I want to see.

I as well stayed as far from the OJ proceedings as I was able, and like you am interested in how this particular instance will play out. Probably more than anything else, I am interested in the evidence that has not been shown to the public; after all what we do have is pretty damning as is.

As for Roseanne, I have to take exception to her statement. Anyone can repent, and it is wrong to withhold forgiveness.

I agree with the repentance, as long as it is genuine and not merely politically expedient. In that case any scorn and derision is deservedly poured upon those who merely espouse a facade of remorse.

UncleTom.. ahawk.... there comes a time when it is best to let others think you are foolish.... then to continue talking and remove all doubt

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I know that I wound up watching some of the OJ trials, despite my best efforts not to. I saw enough in that small segment of the trial that I would not have been able to convict. Call me names all you want; had I been setting on that jury, I could not have convicted OJ Simpson.

In hindsight, he was likely guilty. Incidents since then have shown me that. But that does not change how I, as a juror, would have been obliged to act at that time.

OJ was accused of a horrendous domestic murder. In a perfect world he would have been convicted and still sitting in a cell. On the other hand, though, while no one was directly killed because of Smollett, his actions fueled a massive swelling of hatred in this country that could easily mean he is indirectly responsible for multiple deaths of strangers, not to mention the cases that were not investigated because the police were too busy spending time with him. Indirectly, then, this is a more heinous case than OJ's.

That's based on my bias. I want to put myself in that jury box again and watch his case with an open mind... because the outcome will tell me much about the state of our country. If he is justly found not guilty, we are in worse shape with our justice system than I thought. If he is unjustly found not guilty, we are in danger of civil war because people are willing to ignore facts to protect their politics at the risk of violence. If he is unjustly found guilty, the same. If he is justly found guilty, perhaps there is hope left for us.

I agree with the repentance, as long as it is genuine and not merely politically expedient. In that case any scorn and derision is deservedly poured upon those who merely espouse a facade of remorse.

Oh, they need not be forgiven now... they have shown no remorse IMO. The part that bothers me is when she said she could never forgive them. That ignores the possibility of repentance. Never say never.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: TheRedneck

I predict the judge will throw this mess out before it gets started because there is no substance behind the claims...

Wow. The delusion you revel in is simply astounding. You're in for some serious disappointment.

Look, if Jussie plays his cards right from here on, the judge might grant you conjugal visits. It's probably the best you can hope for right now... Good luck

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

He lied. Smollett specifically said he saw white skin around the eyes.

One small sentence kills the credibility of your long ranting post.

You should contact the da with your astute break in the case.

Your point that jussie thought he seen white eyelids does not equate guilt.

Perhaps he did see white eyelids?

Very often what people think they see and what they actually see are two different things.

I wonder if you have ever heard that during events that a large number of people see the reports are often very far apart and often is no valid indication of the truth. The vegas massacre comes to mind. Look how many people saw one thing and others saw something very different.

Deception can most often play tricks with peoples minds and often if someone is expecting to see something then they manage to see just that even though they really did not.

This site is often filled with such stories of people seeing or thinking they seen something that others claim can not be. It is the bread and butter of ATS.

While you are correct in stating that eyewitness testimony is often the worst type of evidence in terms of reliability - especially cross-racial IDs which this wouldn't qualify as - you seem to be choosing to ignore what the law likes to call "the totality of the circumstances."

Sure, anyone could pick apart individual elements of anyone's eyewitness testimony; but when you look at the whole alleged thing and the things the cops and District Attorney KNOW to be FACTS, your argument falls apart.

Look. I get it. You seem to like to be contrarian (and honestly, I like that), but I also get the feeling you are somewhat less than genuine in your arguments - at least as relates to this alleged incident. That's not so cool. But, whatever. A jury of his peers or a judge (if he chooses to go that route which might not be a bad call in this case) will decide his fate. Not a bunch of us on the internet. That's a good thing.