The case of the apparently fraudulent hate-crime involving actor-singer Jussie Smollett may not be over after all. It has just been reported that Kim Foxx – the controversial State Attorney who has become a lightning rod in the case – has declared that she never intended for the case investigating the Smollett incident to be sealed.

Local ABC-7 News, in Chicago, has reported that Foxx is saying that she did not call for the case to be sealed, and that it may in fact become unsealed.

BREAKING: State’s Atrorney Kim Foxx says her office did not ask that the court file be sealed, says it was done inadvertently and she believes it is in the process of being unsealed ⁦@ABC7Chicago⁩ pic.twitter.com/ECrI70JAdG

— Craig Wall ABC 7 (@craigrwall) March 27, 2019

Jesse Kirsch, also from ABC 7 NEws added:

SA explains that only criminal record/police report was meant to be sealed, believes clerk "sealed the whole thing."

— Jesse Kirsch (@JesseKirschABC7) March 27, 2019

Foxx has become a most vexing figure in this case. In February she had abruptly entered the investigation at the behest of Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff. Once placed in contact with Smollett’s family she attempted to have the investigation moved from the Chicago Police Department and over to federal authorities. Soon after she recused herself from the case, just one week prior to Smollett being charged with 16 crimes.

Then suddenly this week she reinserted herself and declared the charges would all be dropped. Making things even more suspicious, the case was declared sealed, and no further information could be released, even precluding any Freedom Of Information Act requests.

In an interview provided Wednesday Foxx, who has since claimed she never officially recused herself, continued to offer up contradictions. After stating that “I believe this was a just outcome based on the circumstances,” regarding her office deciding to waive all of the charges, she provided more conflicting testimony.

Referring to the details of the investigation Foxx said, “We believe that the facts were sufficient to charge and try Mr. Smollett for the crimes.” So we need to ask then, which condition is correct? Does she feel that there was sufficient reason to drop the charges, or does she believe there was enough evidence to be worthy of charging Smollett and trying him in court?

It appears she would like to have it both ways, or she is looking to provide soundbites that will satisfy either side of this story.

This morning Chicago police released some of the investigative case files regarding the Smollett investigation. These were made public just ahead of the department receiving an order to suspend releasing any further documents related to the Smollett case. As has been the norm for this story from January, it promises to be constantly evolving.

** for more entertainment, political, or bad movie content follow me on Twitter @MartiniShark