¿La verdad sobre Jussie Smollett?

I'm embarrassed for Netflix. Jussie can't help himself and it's obvious this is a desperate pitch to resurrect his career. But Netflix is just showing their desperation (and flaunting their politics) with this very weak "documentary". I will seriously consider ending my Netflix subscription once the last season of 'Stranger Things' has ended.

Documentaries are a tricky medium because they present as factual, when in reality they are extraordinarily biased. In this instance, the "Truth About Jussie Smollett" attempts to cast doubt on Smollett's grandiose hoax, but does so by presenting evidence that is so slanted and so beyond reason, that you would have to turn off your brain to accept it.

The evidence it presents in Jussie's defense comes down to a few key points, all of them flimsy and none of them actually in support of Jussie's original story.

The first piece of evidence are the two eye witness accounts given by the doorman at the Sheraton Hotel and the neighbor of Jussie Smollet. The doorman claimed to see a masked man running at 2am, right around the time of the attack, and claimed the man, despite having a total face covering was white. The video shows a man running by the witness very quickly and with no more than seconds when they pass eachother. The video skips and some random amateur detectives with zero credibility claim the video must have been doctored. Basic google searches of surveillance footage shows that surveillance videos skip frequently, sometimes by design based on the system. The documentary of course, does not mention this fact. How well lit the exterior of the hotel was at 2am is unknown and unclear from the video surveillance. In order to believe Jussie's testimony, you have to believe this doorman saw a sprinting man, in a second, clearly at 2am in the morning. The second witness claims she saw a white man wearing a hat standing outside her (Jussie's) building at 12:30am while walking her dog and that the man had a rope in his back pocket. Two problems here, one is on the night of January 29th, the temperatures in Chicago were in the negatives 20's with windchill. If this man was the attacker and was waiting for Jussie for an additional hour and a half outside he would have suffered from extreme frostbite at a minimum and potentially even hypothermia. This man was not seen on camera seeking shelter in any of the surrounding areas or restaurants that were open. Almost certainly, he was not the attacker and returned to his apartment well before the attack. The second issue with her testimony is she interviewed with police after the story had broke, meaning the details of the white rope were already public knowledge. Even if she did see a white rope (which is unlikely) this man could not have been the attacker due to the weather conditions.

The second piece of evidence is a washed out surveillance video that purports to show one of the attackers without a hood that must be white. The problem with this evidence is the coloration of the video is so extreme that a 2am shot appears to be in broad daylight. It is impossible to determine the race of the person in the video and in fact even those interviewed for the documentary cannot definitively say. The video would need to be true colored and even then it would be difficult to know for sure.

The final piece of evidence is the corruption of the Chicago police force. There is ample evidence, Chicago police is extremely corrupt, however that does that amount to motive to concoct a massive conspiracy to frame Jussie for no apparent reason. If anything, solving a hate crime would have been a major boost to the beleaguered police force.

Here's the problem with all of this, none of it erases the actual evidence of the case. The evidence that ties the brothers from the location of the attack, and tracks them on camera, to the location where they hailed an uber and then back to their house. Evidence that had to be approved by a federal judge in order to issue a warrant to search the homes of said brothers. The fact that the brothers, under advice of their council, willingly gave testimony that proved the plot and fit perfectly with the timeline, tracking of their movements on the night of the attack, and the purchase of full face masks that was caught on camera a few days earlier. This ignores the circumstantial evidence of the check given to the brothers by Jussie and the text message (and video) of Jussie asking to meet the brothers a few days prior to the attack.

None of that evidence is even refuted in the documentary, other than by Jussie who continues to deny his involvement.

I am angry that this documentary gives platforms to people who are pathological liars and those who enable them. I am angry that Jussie manufactured a hate crime that puts so many others at risk. And I'm particularly angry that the filmmaker believed it was in their right to give equal weight to a totally outlandish fable. Shame on everyone involved.

What was the point of this documentary? After watching the Jussie Smollett Netflix documentary, my opinion hasn't changed if anything, he looks even more guilty. This whole thing is a cringe-worthy disaster. He's doubling down instead of owning up, and it's almost painfully pathetic to watch. The guy torpedoed his own career, and anyone still defending him is willfully ignoring reality or just plain stupid.

When Netflix dropped The Truth About Jussie Smollett? On August 22, 2025, it came dressed up as a thoughtful, "multi-perspective" documentary-complete with a question mark poised to signal fair-mindedness. But make no mistake: this film feels more like a cleverly disguised PR vehicle than an honest investigation.

From the get-go, director Gagan Rehill levers the ambiguity of the case-conviction, reversal, competing narratives-to nudge the viewer toward one conclusion: that Smollett's version deserves equal weight. But one can't help but notice the heavy-handed framing. The central tension the doc presents-hate-crime victim or schemer-for-hire-leans uncomfortably toward absolving Smollett, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Let's be clear on the facts: Smollett was found guilty in 2021 of staging the attack and filing a false police report-convicted on five felony counts and handed a jail sentence. Yes, his conviction was overturned in 2024-but not because the evidence was exonerating. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the verdict on narrow due-process grounds: prosecutorial misconduct, not innocence.

Yet the film props up Smollett's denial as the moral high ground. One can't help but feel the editing hand gently sets him up as a misunderstood martyr. Meanwhile, you'd expect a fair documentary to weigh the testimonies of the Osundairo brothers-who claimed he hired them to stage the attack-against his increasingly polished defense. Instead, the editing gives Smollett far more sympathy, even as legal documents still imply serious wrongdoing.

And how about that question mark in the title-it smartly deflects criticism. "Oh, it's just asking questions," they'll say. But let's be honest: we all know it's not an open-ended inquiry. It's a Trojan horse for redemption TV.

At the end of the doc, Netflix's armchair detective stance invites viewers to re-evaluate the story of media overreach, police screw-ups, fractured narratives, and institutional bias. Yet what's glaringly omitted in that invitation is the clear line between investigative nuance and sympathy laundering.

Closing Thought (with a wink at Netflix's weakness for edgy doc series): If Netflix is so committed to making every controversial figure "complex," why not go bigger? Maybe they'd like to air Onision's YouTube "documentaries" next-where he claims (with equally persuasive logic and zero evidence) that he's innocent too, because, well... words and feelings.

Words fail me.

To try and pass off an act like that's that has so much evidence as Smollet being misunderstood and trying to drum up sympathy is astounding.

What's next for Rehill.

'Harvey Weinstein, the misunderstood gentleman'? I'm not kidding. If they try and redeem Smollet in this manner then anyone is fair game.

In conclusion, this film is a great example of trying to redeem a self destroyed career and not take any accountability for you actions.

1/10.