No, you'd still have 2 separate events.
The fake crime Jussie described.
The real event that Jussie inaccurately reported.
I don't mean to get into the weeds on this, but in trying to evaluate LR's position I think we need to plumb out the actual contours of what the crime might or might not have been.
The felony is connected to reporting a crime that didn't occur.
For instance based on what you just wrote, we can adjust the scenario to be that Jussie authorized the assault through a third party, who then hired the attackers, thus making it true that they would be strangers to Jussie.
Being strangers doesn't fix the problem. He knows the motivation for the attack (ie, that he hired them) and yet he reports it in a manner that makes it appear they attacked him for racist, homophobic reasons. Even if all he does is report that they "yelled slurs of that nature" he left out that he paid them to do so.
Intent is a critical part of criminal charges, and you're missing the forest for the trees, in that what he did in faking the intent is every bit as illegal as faking the physical parts of the crime.
And even better - what if Jussie was put up to it by a third party he himself didn't even know personally, and they also arranged for the attack, Jussie's involvement only being to play along and file the crime report?
Then he'd be part of a conspiracy as well. And still guilty of the felony charges.
He would then be 'telling the truth' about being attacked, about them being strangers, and about him not being the mastermind.
He's not "telling the truth" when he intentionally omits facts known to himself that are necessary to give the statements he made their proper context.
I'm not telling the truth when I report someone for threatening me with a gun and omit to mention that I threatened to kill them before they did so.
And yet it would still also be true that he was part of a conspiratorial hoax. So what would the crime be?
The way crimes work, the more elements you add the more charges that can be brought - not less. Have you ever seen an actual charge? Prosecutors will charge dozens of crimes, some of which have direct conflicts. In this case, having actually been beaten doesn't fix the false report.
Let's think of another "example" that will hopefully highlight this. Let's assume that Jussie gets mugged on the way home, by a guy that is looking to steal his wallet, gets punched in the face and otherwise is left unharmed.
Jussie decides that no crisis should go to waste and makes up a complete story about how the person yelled racist things and was after him because of his status.
The real crime he suffered, doesn't change is false report into a true one.
I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.
I take LR's point to be that the prosecutor was correct to dismiss the case because the case was flawed. It was not flawed in the manner he described. It may have been flawed in ways we haven't seen.