Jussie Smollett attacked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I think it's a terrible argument to give up your rights because you have nothing to hide. Even if you're not engaged in anything criminal, privacy should still be valued. And if you're a celebrity with anything on your phone, and you give it to the police, it is going to leak. There's plenty of past evidence of thar.

Im guessing that by now he could’ve printed his call history from that night with #s redacted besides his manager’s? Idk..I understand where folks are coming from when they say that they wouldn’t turn their phone over, but there are less intrusive ways to confirm that info for the police, and they’re not time consuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Are people suggesting the attack never happened/that he made the whole thing up? Or is it just uncertainty about the nature of/impetus for the attack?

If the latter, does it really matter if it was random, a stalker, or a hookup gone wrong? It's not like any of those situations make it ok to assault someone.

Absolutely agree. However, it's not ok to falsely label the people who attacked you as "Trump supporters" to make some kind of political point, either. And so far, there has been no evidence that this was true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were the victim of a crime and the police said they'd like to examine your phone, would you say yes?

I would hope not! The police can easily get those records from the service provider. Is it faster to see the phone? Sure, but he's under no obligation to comply to that request.

Police departments are notoriously leaky. Think of everything on your phone at the moment... do you want that in the hands of the police? Because they aren't going to do a quick looky-loo at the phone; they're going to physically process the phone using software. That software is going to pull everything from the phone... all of the WiFi spots you've connected to, your GPS data, all of your SMS and MMS (including deleted), and if you're on an iPhone, it's going to pull your cloud keychain data (that's all your passwords and cc info if you have it saved to your phone). They'll have every password you've used for every site and can then log in. How do I know this? Because I'm in digital forensics and that's what I do.

Not turning over his phone to the police is not even on the list of reasons why this story is odd.

Smollett story aside, this is an excellent post and people should pay attention. If I knew nothing on my phone would help the police, no way would I give it over. And if I were a celebrity, a double triple no, even if it could help or back jump my story. Because you know leaks are happening.

so I might be in the minority but I could care less. I have nothing interesting on my phone and if it would help get my attackers, I would not hesitate.

Yep. If I had been violently attacked, you'd better believe I'd do anything I could to bring the attackers to justice. And that includes handing over my phone if there was even a miniscule chance that would help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Are people suggesting the attack never happened/that he made the whole thing up? Or is it just uncertainty about the nature of/impetus for the attack?

If the latter, does it really matter if it was random, a stalker, or a hookup gone wrong? It's not like any of those situations make it ok to assault someone.

It's never ok to assault someone. But claiming the whole MAGA/racist part is ridiculous if not true. I get he would want to hide it if it was a hookup gone bad or drug deal or whatever. But don't bring race into it.

I would say the same thing about anyone whether MAGA, BLM,ALM...whatever. Because 2 things happen. 1. It causes people to get even more heated about the issue (MAGA people are racist evils) and 2. When it comes out as a lie...it discredits the actual issue at hand.

EXACTLY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think it's a terrible argument to give up your rights because you have nothing to hide. Even if you're not engaged in anything criminal, privacy should still be valued. And if you're a celebrity with anything on your phone, and you give it to the police, it is going to leak. There's plenty of past evidence of thar.

Im guessing that by now he could’ve printed his call history from that night with #s redacted besides his manager’s? Idk..I understand where folks are coming from when they say that they wouldn’t turn their phone over, but there are less intrusive ways to confirm that info for the police, and they’re not time consuming.

Maybe that has happened. It’s not like we are getting a play by play of the investigation. It’s not like the police have said he is not cooperating.

Serious question, what would they be looking for on his phone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think it's a terrible argument to give up your rights because you have nothing to hide. Even if you're not engaged in anything criminal, privacy should still be valued. And if you're a celebrity with anything on your phone, and you give it to the police, it is going to leak. There's plenty of past evidence of thar.

Im guessing that by now he could’ve printed his call history from that night with #s redacted besides his manager’s? Idk..I understand where folks are coming from when they say that they wouldn’t turn their phone over, but there are less intrusive ways to confirm that info for the police, and they’re not time consuming.

Maybe that has happened. It’s not like we are getting a play by play of the investigation. It’s not like the police have said he is not cooperating.

Serious question, what would they be looking for on his phone?

speculation of course - but a theory that has been mentioned before

Phones are lifelines. They store contact information, texts, emails, images, links to social media - lots of forms of communication.

Without going through the laundry list of answered questions and observations about holes in his story, people have said that he may have had a sexual encounter that went wrong.
If this is the case, in his defense, he could have been set up. But, if this is the case - and he's working on his PR spin - his phone is a direct line to answers.

Personally? I don't think we'll ever find out unless they go full force with his phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think it's a terrible argument to give up your rights because you have nothing to hide. Even if you're not engaged in anything criminal, privacy should still be valued. And if you're a celebrity with anything on your phone, and you give it to the police, it is going to leak. There's plenty of past evidence of thar.

Im guessing that by now he could’ve printed his call history from that night with #s redacted besides his manager’s? Idk..I understand where folks are coming from when they say that they wouldn’t turn their phone over, but there are less intrusive ways to confirm that info for the police, and they’re not time consuming.

Maybe that has happened. It’s not like we are getting a play by play of the investigation. It’s not like the police have said he is not cooperating.

Serious question, what would they be looking for on his phone?

speculation of course - but a theory that has been mentioned before

Phones are lifelines. They store contact information, texts, emails, images, links to social media - lots of forms of communication.

Without going through the laundry list of answered questions and observations about holes in his story, people have said that he may have had a sexual encounter that went wrong.
If this is the case, in his defense, he could have been set up. But, if this is the case - and he's working on his PR spin - his phone is a direct line to answers.

Personally? I don't think we'll ever find out unless they go full force with his phone.

So they are looking to either confirm or poke holes in his story by going through his phone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think it's a terrible argument to give up your rights because you have nothing to hide. Even if you're not engaged in anything criminal, privacy should still be valued. And if you're a celebrity with anything on your phone, and you give it to the police, it is going to leak. There's plenty of past evidence of thar.

Im guessing that by now he could’ve printed his call history from that night with #s redacted besides his manager’s? Idk..I understand where folks are coming from when they say that they wouldn’t turn their phone over, but there are less intrusive ways to confirm that info for the police, and they’re not time consuming.

Maybe that has happened. It’s not like we are getting a play by play of the investigation. It’s not like the police have said he is not cooperating.

Serious question, what would they be looking for on his phone?

speculation of course - but a theory that has been mentioned before

Phones are lifelines. They store contact information, texts, emails, images, links to social media - lots of forms of communication.

Without going through the laundry list of answered questions and observations about holes in his story, people have said that he may have had a sexual encounter that went wrong.
If this is the case, in his defense, he could have been set up. But, if this is the case - and he's working on his PR spin - his phone is a direct line to answers.

Personally? I don't think we'll ever find out unless they go full force with his phone.

So they are looking to either confirm or poke holes in his story by going through his phone?

If cameras caught nothing - very little to go by- the phone may have information. But there's been no news that the PD is moving forward with that measure. It does become a witch hunt, however, as he is still a victim. So how much do you push for information to supposedly help before the helpful measures become accusatory?

[Anonymous]

The video footage at the hotel showed that when he arrived there (after the attack) he was carrying the subway sandwich. I'm very impressed that he suffered a violent attack but still managed to maintain possession of the sandwich. Kinda like a guy at a baseball game who doesn't spill his beer while stretching out to catch a foul ball. Only more impressive. He must have been hungry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The video footage at the hotel showed that when he arrived there (after the attack) he was carrying the subway sandwich. I'm very impressed that he suffered a violent attack but still managed to maintain possession of the sandwich. Kinda like a guy at a baseball game who doesn't spill his beer while stretching out to catch a foul ball. Only more impressive. He must have been hungry.

Is he saying that he was attacked outside or inside the hotel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video footage at the hotel showed that when he arrived there (after the attack) he was carrying the subway sandwich. I'm very impressed that he suffered a violent attack but still managed to maintain possession of the sandwich. Kinda like a guy at a baseball game who doesn't spill his beer while stretching out to catch a foul ball. Only more impressive. He must have been hungry.

Is he saying that he was attacked outside or inside the hotel?

He exited Subway after purchasing a sandwich. He was attacked outside of Subway. Then he proceeded to the hotel he was staying at. And he still possessed the sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think it's a terrible argument to give up your rights because you have nothing to hide. Even if you're not engaged in anything criminal, privacy should still be valued. And if you're a celebrity with anything on your phone, and you give it to the police, it is going to leak. There's plenty of past evidence of thar.

Im guessing that by now he could’ve printed his call history from that night with #s redacted besides his manager’s? Idk..I understand where folks are coming from when they say that they wouldn’t turn their phone over, but there are less intrusive ways to confirm that info for the police, and they’re not time consuming.

Maybe that has happened. It’s not like we are getting a play by play of the investigation. It’s not like the police have said he is not cooperating.

Serious question, what would they be looking for on his phone?

My gut is telling me he had a date or something of that sort setup and something went wrong. All of that would be available on his phone. Whether it was a date or a drug thing whatever I think the phone would actually implicate him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video footage at the hotel showed that when he arrived there (after the attack) he was carrying the subway sandwich. I'm very impressed that he suffered a violent attack but still managed to maintain possession of the sandwich. Kinda like a guy at a baseball game who doesn't spill his beer while stretching out to catch a foul ball. Only more impressive. He must have been hungry.

Is he saying that he was attacked outside or inside the hotel?

He exited Subway after purchasing a sandwich. He was attacked outside of Subway. Then he proceeded to the hotel he was staying at. And he still possessed the sandwich.

He also called his manager during the attack b/c the manager heard MAGA. The time of that call would be significant. Location is not always accurate, however, but time of call would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video footage at the hotel showed that when he arrived there (after the attack) he was carrying the subway sandwich. I'm very impressed that he suffered a violent attack but still managed to maintain possession of the sandwich. Kinda like a guy at a baseball game who doesn't spill his beer while stretching out to catch a foul ball. Only more impressive. He must have been hungry.

Is he saying that he was attacked outside or inside the hotel?

He exited Subway after purchasing a sandwich. He was attacked outside of Subway. Then he proceeded to the hotel he was staying at. And he still possessed the sandwich.

He also called his manager during the attack b/c the manager heard MAGA. The time of that call would be significant. Location is not always accurate, however, but time of call would be.

But how in the world did he maintain positive control of the sandwich throughout the ordeal? If it was knocked to the ground did he then pick it back up to take it home and eat? After they beat him and poured bleach on him? I don't doubt his story but I do doubt his manager heard someone yell MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video footage at the hotel showed that when he arrived there (after the attack) he was carrying the subway sandwich. I'm very impressed that he suffered a violent attack but still managed to maintain possession of the sandwich. Kinda like a guy at a baseball game who doesn't spill his beer while stretching out to catch a foul ball. Only more impressive. He must have been hungry.

Is he saying that he was attacked outside or inside the hotel?

He exited Subway after purchasing a sandwich. He was attacked outside of Subway. Then he proceeded to the hotel he was staying at. And he still possessed the sandwich.

He also called his manager during the attack b/c the manager heard MAGA. The time of that call would be significant. Location is not always accurate, however, but time of call would be.

But how in the world did he maintain positive control of the sandwich throughout the ordeal? If it was knocked to the ground did he then pick it back up to take it home and eat? After they beat him and poured bleach on him? I don't doubt his story but I do doubt his manager heard someone yell MAGA.

He said he fought off his assailants, with phone and sandwich both intact, I guess.

In Variety -

And above all: I fought the f— back.”