Billboard talks to the other man accused in Chuck Philips’ LA Times story about the 1994 assault on rapper Tupac Shakur, Jimmy Rosemond. Rosemond is currently the manager of the Game and other rappers. He says a couple of interesting things:

[T]he five-shot theory doesn’t work for me. […] Tupac was walking around laughing. I only saw one bullet hole, so this whole five-shot theory never made sense. Tupac was walking around, he had a little bit of blood dripping from his head and he was laughing, rolled up a spliff and waited for the ambulance. It was just irresponsible on Chuck Phillips’ part to throw me under the bus like that from information he gathered from government informants that had lengthy sentences.

And he says this about James Sabatino, the center of the hoax that has embarrassed the LAT and Philips:

I don’t even know who James Sabatino is and for me to conspire with him to do anything … is ridiculous. He’s 30 years old now, so this guy was 16 or 17 years old when this incident happened? I’m 43 year old man. Then I was in my 30s and I was hanging out with a 16-year-old? There is no way.

Rosemond says he’s going to be suing. We’ll see. Philips gave this background and opportunity for denial from Rosemond in the original story:

Rosemond, who has served prison time for drug dealing and weapons offenses, has been described by Vibe magazine as “one of the most respected and feared players in hip-hop.” His Czar Entertainment represents rappers Shyne, Too Short, Gucci Mane and the Game.

Rosemond has long denied any role in the Quad incident. He declined to be interviewed for this article, but his lawyer, Jeffrey Lichtman, dismissed the new information as “ancient double-hearsay allegations.”

Lichtman noted that Rosemond had never been charged or questioned in connection with the attack — a sign, Lichtman said, that federal authorities have “discounted” what the informant told them. Rosemond “was not involved in the assault and will not be prosecuted for it,” Lichtman said.

While we won’t know for sure until the paper reveals the results of its internal investigation into the story, a libel case doesn’t seem like a sure thing. Leaving aside the high bar of showing Philips acted with “reckless disregard,” as I noted last week, while the Times and Philips have apologized for “partially” basing the story on what it acknowledges were forged documents, they have not as yet formally retracted its allegations.

—

Previously:

At the LA Times, the pain may be just beginning

Did the LAT get hoaxed on its Tupac bombshell?

Also:

The LAT’s apology and its original story.

The Smoking Gun’s expose of the hoax.