Smollett Charges Dropped...

[Sparko]

Yes certainly the police and prosecutors must have reasonable grounds for arresting and charging the person. The problem was the high profile press conference by police and city officials during which they expressed their shock and outrage at Smollett putting his "perceived self-interest" ahead of the city's values. In short acting on the assumption Smollett was guilty before the trial. Personally, I think he probably was, but it's up to the trial to determine this not police and city officials grandstanding before the trial.

You mean like they did with Trump?

[myth]

So now the CPD and Mayor are wanting Smollett to pay an additional $130K. They say it is to repay the city for the time spent investigating the fraud.

I think this is wrong. It makes Chicago look like they are trying a shake-down and are more interested in money than justice. They already let him go for $10K, now they want him to pay $130K more.

If they truly think he is guilty, they need to just try him in a court of law. This money business is wrong.

The police attempted to have him tried in a court of law, and the prosecutor threw a monkey wrench in the works. IMO, the Chicago Police are the victims of a fraud committed by Smollett and they are entitled to seek restitution for monetary damages. I'm sure they don't expect Smollett to pay the money, but it's probably the initial step in filing a civil suit against him. Which quite frankly is BRILLIANT. The prosecutor's office sealed the criminal court documents, but if they sue Smollett and he refuses to pay, all the details of his misdeeds will get aired in civil court. I hope he refuses to pay and the public gets to hear all about his crime.

[Mountain Man]

That's probably why his attorneys will strongly encourage him to pay up.

[Sparko]

The police attempted to have him tried in a court of law, and the prosecutor threw a monkey wrench in the works. IMO, the Chicago Police are the victims of a fraud committed by Smollett and they are entitled to seek restitution for monetary damages. I'm sure they don't expect Smollett to pay the money, but it's probably the initial step in filing a civil suit against him. Which quite frankly is BRILLIANT. The prosecutor's office sealed the criminal court documents, but if they sue Smollett and he refuses to pay, all the details of his misdeeds will get aired in civil court. I hope he refuses to pay and the public gets to hear all about his crime.

Since they are asking for repayment for the time they wasted investigating the fraud, if he does pay, he is admitting it was a fraud. Why would anyone pay for a police investigation that was for a legit claim? But it still looks bad, like all they care about is money and not justice.

He needs to be tried in court and so does the prosecutors involved in the cover up.

[myth]

Since they are asking for repayment for the time they wasted investigating the fraud, if he does pay, he is admitting it was a fraud. Why would anyone pay for a police investigation that was for a legit claim? But it still looks bad, like all they care about is money and not justice.

He needs to be tried in court and so does the prosecutors involved in the cover up.

They charged him and sought justice. They don't have the legal authority to over-rule the state attorney's office and force a trial, so unless the state attorney's office changes their mind or a new state's attorney is elected, that option is toast.

Since they wasted valuable resources investigating what turned out to be a false claim, it makes sense to seek restitution. Hell, one could even argue they're being reasonable stewards of the City of Chicago's money by seeking to have him pay for it.

I agree, though. His lawyers will tell him that paying the money makes him look guilty. On the other hand, if he wants to keep pretending he's innocent...it'll be harder after a public civil trial during which people get to talk about the details of the investigation against him. He may pay it and try to claim he's taking some sort of moral high-ground, or call it a 'donation'.

As a criminal investigator, I hate dealing with false reports. Granted, I almost never charge people for making a false report. For one thing, the bar to proving they knowingly made false statements is higher to reach than simply arriving at a point where there's no evidence their claims are true. Secondly, if I haven't wasted too much time investigating the issue, I'm usually just glad to be done with the case and want to move on to the next case. However, there are cases during which the time and resources spent investigating the issue are significant. In those, if the evidence of a false report is great enough, then people need to be charged as a deterrent.

I feel particularly strongly about that in sex cases and other politically sensitive cases, like Smollett's. It's lying morons like him that make it difficult to just automatically believe real victims when they come forward.

[Mountain Man]

Chris Rock rips Smollett at the NAACP awards:

"They said no Jussie Smollett jokes. I know. What a waste of light skin. You know what I could do with that light skin? That curly hair? My career would be out of here. [Censored] running Hollywood. [...] What the hell was he thinking? From now on, you’re Jessie from now on. You don’t even get the ‘U’ no more. That ‘U’ was respect. You don’t get no respect from me.”

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...s-he-thinking/

[Sparko]

They charged him and sought justice. They don't have the legal authority to over-rule the state attorney's office and force a trial, so unless the state attorney's office changes their mind or a new state's attorney is elected, that option is toast.

Since they wasted valuable resources investigating what turned out to be a false claim, it makes sense to seek restitution. Hell, one could even argue they're being reasonable stewards of the City of Chicago's money by seeking to have him pay for it.

I agree, though. His lawyers will tell him that paying the money makes him look guilty. On the other hand, if he wants to keep pretending he's innocent...it'll be harder after a public civil trial during which people get to talk about the details of the investigation against him. He may pay it and try to claim he's taking some sort of moral high-ground, or call it a 'donation'.

As a criminal investigator, I hate dealing with false reports. Granted, I almost never charge people for making a false report. For one thing, the bar to proving they knowingly made false statements is higher to reach than simply arriving at a point where there's no evidence their claims are true. Secondly, if I haven't wasted too much time investigating the issue, I'm usually just glad to be done with the case and want to move on to the next case. However, there are cases during which the time and resources spent investigating the issue are significant. In those, if the evidence of a false report is great enough, then people need to be charged as a deterrent.

I feel particularly strongly about that in sex cases and other politically sensitive cases, like Smollett's. It's lying morons like him that make it difficult to just automatically believe real victims when they come forward.

Yeah a false hate crime that is in the national media with him spreading the lies on TV means it has far reaching consequences. It needs to be dealt with. I am still hoping the FBI will get him on the mail fraud/terroristic threatening. He deserves jail time for this nationwide scandal he created just to get a raise.

[Mountain Man]

They also sealed the case so Smollett can keep claiming innocence.

And now it's unsealed. It was, ironically, Smollett proclaiming his innocence to the media that convinced a judge that he had implicitly waived his right to privacy.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...ered-unsealed/

[guacamole]

And now it's unsealed. It was, ironically, Smollett proclaiming his innocence to the media that convinced a judge that he had implicitly waived his right to privacy.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...ered-unsealed/

If this blows up you all can share my avatar.

[rogue06]

The latest twist:

Source: Judge Orders Appointment of Special Prosecutor in Jussie Smollett Case, Additional Prosecution Back on the Table

A Cook County judge on Friday ordered the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case, which could lead to new charges against the "Empire" star.

Chicago Tribune reporter Megan Crepeau was in this morning's hearing, where Judge Michael Toomin ruled that when State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the case, she did not have the authority to appoint her replacement.

Crepeau reported that the special prosecutor may further prosecute Smollett and quoted the judge as saying if they have "reasonable grounds to believe that any other criminal offense was committed ... special prosecutor may commence the prosecution of any crime as may be suspected."

The judge's ruling stated that the special prosecutor was to be appointed so as to "restore the public's confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system."

00000000000000ab000-00a.jpg

At the time, Foxx said she recused herself after she had conversations with a relative of Smollett's before he was charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly faking the attack against himself.

First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Magats took over the case and prosecutors ended up dropping all charges against Smollett after the “Empire” star. He performed 16 hours of community service and agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bail but did not admit any guilt in the alleged incident.

It was later revealed that two weeks before the charges were dropped, Foxx texted her staff and called Smollett a “washed-up celeb who lied to cops.” She also told them he was being charged too harshly.

Critics have said that if Foxx truly recused herself of the case, it would have been handed over to a state’s attorney from a different county.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

00000000000000ars3k.gif

[Mountain Man]

"Judge Michael Toomin ruled that when State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the case, she did not have the authority to appoint her replacement."

Well, that and the fact that she never actually recused herself, saying that she only used the term "colloquially".