The 6ix9ine-related Nine Trey trial has captured headlines for the past two weeks, and jury deliberations begin on Wednesday. At the center of the case against one of the two defendants, Anthony "Harv" Ellison, is the alleged robbery and kidnapping of 6ix9ine in July 2018. Ellison is accused of the crime, and during the trial, several people involved in the incident—6ix9ine, his driver Jorge Rivera, and various police and medical personnel—gave their accounts of what happened in those early morning hours.
But Ellison himself has never spoken—until now. His representative Camille Cushman issued a statement exclusively to Complex that lays out the defendant's side of the story in his own words, and points out a number of what they call "incongruous story elements" in the goverment's case.
Most notably, Ellison's rep claims that he was "promised" by federal agents that he "would be home in weeks" if he corroborated their version of events instead of his own. Cushman claims that the officers said Ellison's arrest was "business, not personal."
Ellison himself mirrors the argument long put out by his lead attorney Deveraux Cannick: that the kidnapping was staged by 6ix9ine. Ellison directly addressed a point the government made during closing arguments: that 6ix9ine staging a robbery for the sake of publicity would not make sense because being robbed would be embarrassing to the rapper.
"Danny didn’t care if the stunt could be taken as embarrassing, he thought it was believable," Ellison says in the statement. "He said it would even make some people feel bad for him, which was good after all the trolling he had done. It worked, even Shotti bought it."
Cushman says that the government is relying more on jurors' attitudes than facts: "These prosecutors are relying more on the jurors' bias towards gang culture than they are on real evidence. They've been forcing puzzle pieces together that clearly don’t fit."
The complete statement by Ellison's representative Camille Cushman is below:
Throughout the 6ix9ine trial, we heard multiple testimonies of what allegedly took place on July 22, 2018 and Oct 24, 2018—two dates associated with federal charges that have defendant Anthony "Harv" Ellison currently facing a potential life sentence if convicted. The witnesses have been primarily NYPD or government cooperators, primed in advance to weave together a loose storyline that indicts Ellison in crimes that lack evidence.
Testimonies delivered by witnesses are sophisticated and rehearsed; witnesses met with the government on more than 20 occasions for sessions that lasted more than seven hours each. Upon cross-examination, the same witnesses who could quote minute details from insignificant moments from 2015, repeatedly responded to defense lawyer’s questions with "I don’t recall." False narratives have been established by relying on incongruent witness stories and without citing hard evidence.
As Ellison’s attorney Deveraux Cannick stated in his closing argument, “You don’t need to practice the truth.”
There is no evidence or eyewitnesses to corroborate the fed’s story. The prosecutors brought a cell-site expert under oath who ended up revealing discrepancies in their previous witness testimony. The testimonies were clearly scripted. And their biggest witness was 6ix9ine, an expert manipulator.
"Danny didn’t care if the stunt could be taken as embarrassing, he thought it was believable. He said it would even make some people feel bad for him, which was good after all the trolling he had done. It worked, even Shotti bought it." - Anthony Ellison
While the government did prove Ellison was a loyal and protective member of 6ix9ine’s team, they struggled to produce evidence that proved that Ellison has, in fact, done anything he’s being charged with. Prosecutors are steering the jury to overlook timelines, conflicting accounts, and lack of substantive evidence and instead tap into the jurors’ fear and bias of gangs.
"These prosecutors are relying more on the jurors’ bias towards gang culture than they are on real evidence. They’ve been forcing puzzle pieces together that clearly don’t fit." - Camille Cushman
An outline of the incongruous story elements:
- Cell-site testimonies show Ellison in Battery Tunnel at the same time the prosecutors earlier had a witness testify that in that time frame, Ellison was being shot at in Bed-Stuy.
- 6ix9ine testifies that he doesn’t know the exact address to where his friend Andrew Green lives, nor is Green picking up his calls, but that is where he is supposedly driving to, at 5:30am.
- Driver Jorge Rivera, a cooperating witness with the government during the time of the kidnapping, did not report the alleged kidnapping incident to his handler.
- 6ix9ine managed to hire Kooda B to shoot at hip-hop legend Chief Keef for 10K but nobody managed to shoot at a random person "Harv," who was said to have a $50k hit on his head and was easily accessible for several months in Brooklyn until his arrest.
- 6ix9ine randomly jumps into a new car (nobody questions auto-lock reality) of a stranger in Bed-Stuy at 530am and orders this stranger to drive him around. Who is this person and why are they not testifying?
- Prosecutors paint Harv out to not listen to music from Crips, meanwhile they play a video of him listening to Young Jeezy (known Crip) in tunnel.
- Harv repeatedly is said to be a very silent executor who doesn’t even speak to 6ix9ine upon meeting him, but then in another scene he’s conveniently a loud talker who shares secrets with strangers.
- Rivera claims he did not hear any of the Angie Martinez interview, but can be seen in the interview getting a shout out from 6ix9ine and Martinez and waving back.
An important detail that was left out by prosecutors was that federal agents promised Ellison that he would be home in weeks if he were to give a statement that corroborated their version of events, and that his involvement/arrest was "business, not personal."
When it comes to the burden of effectively charging someone with years or a life sentence, there can be no room for error. With the lack of substantial evidence and incongruencies presented throughout this trial, we must demand a more solid case. There can be no doubt.