The Chicago Police Department has released 70 hours of footage obtained during their investigation into the now-infamous hate crime reported and allegedly perpetrated by actor Jussie Smollett.

Among the footage released by the CPD is body cam footage taken by officers responding to the 9-1-1 call which reported the alleged attack, wherein Smollett can still be seen wearing the noose he alleges was placed on him by his two attackers (later identified by CPD as the Osundairo brothers, whom the CPD allege were Smollett’s accomplices in perpetrating the hoax attack):

In the video, officers can be seen meeting Smollett’s manager, self-identified as his ‘Creative Director’ in the video, in the lobby of the manager’s apartment building (There have been no reports or evidence that Smollett’s manager was in on the alleged hoax). The officers meet the manager, inform him they are audio and visually recording him, and proceed to follow him to the apartment while the manager informs the officers that Smollett does not want to make a “big deal” of the situation. Upon entering the apartment and being informed by officers that Smollett was being recorded, the actor informs his manager that he does not want to be recorded, and the bodycam is turned off after a final confirmation of the request by the responding officers.

This release comes shortly after the June 21st ruling by Cook County Judge Michael Toomin to appoint a special prosecutor to review Smollett’s case and it’s handling by State’s Attorney Kim Foxx. Toomin asserts that Foxx’s recusal from the case was not a true recusal, as she used the term colloquially and thus did not inform the Court of her formal recusal. Toomin also claims that the delegation of First Assistant State’s Attorney Joe Magats as the “Acting State’s Attorney for this matter” was illegal, as the office does not exist in Illinois:

“In summary, Jussie Smollett’s case is truly unique among the countless prosecutions heard in this building. A case that purported to have been brought and supervised by a prosecutor serving in the stead of our duty elected State’s Attorney, who was appointed to a fictitious office having no legal existence. It is also a case that deviated from the statutory mandate requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor in cases where the State’s Attorney is recused. And finally, it is a case where based upon similar factual scenarios, resulting dispositions and judgements have been deemed void and held for naught.” “Although the disqualification of the duly State’s Attorney necessarily impacts constitutional concerns, the unprecedented irregularities identified in this case warrants the appointment of independent counsel to restore the public’s confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system”

What do you make of this newly released footage?

(Visited 642 times, 1 visits today)