R. Kelly acquitted in all counts

[Buehrle>Wood]

Lol!Then who the hell do you blame?!

 

As noted, blame the prosection. I think the jury made the right decision, there wasn't near enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with the girl denying it was her on the tape.

[Jenksismyhero]

As noted, blame the prosection. I think the jury made the right decision, there wasn't near enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with the girl denying it was her on the tape.

 

 

What? Blame the jury for being a bunch of morons.

 

Here's the evidence:

 

a 30 min tape

15 witnesses that said it was her on the tape

an expert witness that said if someone doctored the tape, it would have taken them 40 years to do it

1 witness that says she had sex with R Kelly and the "victim" before

 

The problem is because of Johnny Cochran, our juries are totally confused about the proper burdens on each side in a trial. There was no REASONABLE doubt about this. Reasonable is there are 7 witnesses on both sides who claim the person in the tape is or is not the victim. Or the fact that the "Kelly" on the tape was a middle aged balding white guy. That's REASONABLE.

 

The only thing the prosecution did wrong in this case was believe that the jury of its peers could properly weigh the evidence and not be caught up in BS character evidence against the insane threesome chick. Instead of weighing the evidence presented, the jury basically said, well, the prosecutions "star" witness is a crackhead, so, ya know, screw the other evidence we've seen, that's no good.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

But the key is that the girl on the tape denied it was her.

 

Over seven days presenting their case, prosecutors called 22 witnesses, including several childhood friends of the alleged victim and four of her relatives who identified her as the female on the video. Some said she had referred to Kelly as her "godfather."

 

In just two days, Kelly's lawyers called 12 witnesses. They included three relatives of the alleged victim who testified they did not recognize her as the female on the tape.

 

Adam said that the alleged victim's relatives know it's not her on the video because "any solid man in that family, any solid woman in that family would have gone over there and broken his legs, would have gone over there and beat the crap out of him."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/12/rkelly...s.ap/index.html

 

I dont know how the govt could have possibly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If both people on the tape says its not them and you have other relatives saying that its not the girl, its going to be really hard to convince some jurors to send a man to jail.

 

While I doubt that R. Kelly is innocent, I dont blame the jury for finding the way that they did. Our law is clear, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crimes that R. Kelly was charged with. If even for a moment the juror felt it may not have been R. Kelly, that it may not have been the girl, they had to acquit, that is what the law dictates.

 

I know your more pro prosecution than me Jenks hehe

[whitesoxfan101]

Soxbadger is right. I don't claim to be a lawyer here, but it's pretty hard to convict somebody of a crime if the so called victim denies she is involved, was the victim, or in this case, is the girl in the tape. It is a case of our justice system sucking, but the reason it's a case of that is R. Kelly is a free man because it's pretty obvious he paid the girl off to say she wasn't the victim or in the tape. But hey, if you have money, you can get away with almost anything in America.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can see your guys' points, but I dunno, this whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I mean if you're a juror on this case, you don't second guess any motive behind this girl lying, even though she looks incredibly similar?

 

It didn't help that the judge didn't allow the jury to hear that Kelly has paid off four other underage girls who have brought complaints against him. That probably would have helped a little.

[Steff]

I can see your guys' points, but I dunno, this whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I mean if you're a juror on this case, you don't second guess any motive behind this girl lying, even though she looks incredibly similar?

 

It didn't help that the judge didn't allow the jury to hear that Kelly has paid off four other underage girls who have brought complaints against him. That probably would have helped a little.

 

 

It also didn't help that the tape, while not manipulated in any way, was s***tier than the s***tiest tape you have ever seen X10. For those of you old enough to remember, think the dirty movie channel scrambled and add on a heavy dose of blizzard snow. And while I didn't personally see it, that is from a reporter who sat in on the trial who saw it all 9 times they played it and said she something new or different each time, so I'm confident with her words. I say he's guilty as sin, and likely did this before hense the other complaining witnesses, but based on the evidence the jury SAW, there's no way they could convict him. The defense knew it from the start and they almost didn't even present a defense they were so confident. A shame, and a very bad taste, but they did what they were supposed to do with what they had to do it.