R. Kelly not guilty

[Odin]

CHICAGO - R. Kelly was acquitted of all charges Friday after less than a day of deliberations in his child pornography trial, ending a six-year ordeal for the R&B superstar.

Kelly dabbed his face with a handkerchief and hugged each of his four attorneys after the verdict — not guilty on all 14 counts — was read. The Grammy award-winning singer had faced 15 years in prison if convicted.

Minutes later, surrounded by bodyguards, he left the courthouse without comment. Dozens of fans screamed and cheered as he climbed into a waiting SUV.

“All I heard (from Kelly) while those 14 verdicts were being read was ‘Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus,”’ said Sam Adam Jr., one of his attorneys.

Prosecutors had argued that a video tape mailed to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2002 showed Kelly engaged in graphic sex acts with a girl as young as 13 at the time. Both Kelly, 41, and the now 23-year-old alleged victim had denied they were the ones on the tape. Neither testified during the trial.

“Robert said all along that he believed in our system and he believed in God — and that when all the facts came out in court, he would be cleared of these terrible charges,” according to a statement from his publicist, Allen Mayer. “But he never dreamed it would take six and a half years. This has been a terrible ordeal for him and his family and at this point all he wants to do is move forward and put it behind him.”

Theres more about it at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145335/

What do you all think about it?

 

[Spunky]

They found him innocent. What more is there to think about?

 

[Odin]

Well..Do you think its right for them to find him innocent considering all the evidence that was stacked against him?

The fact that R. Kelly imo was in the video, and had sex with the girl on tape, but the girl denies it, and so does he. So do you think that since she gave her informed consent that it makes it ok?

and did you personally believe he was guilty or innocent?

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

I don't care :O

That's what I think, anyway.

 

[Spunky]

If she denies it, it's for a reason. Who cares what really happened?

 

[Odin]

If you guys don't care then don't post on the thread?

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

What's there to care about, really? Some guy has sex with a minor, la-di-dah.. Oh wait.. It's isn't -some- guy, it's R KELLY!!!.. They both denied being on that video, so that means that if it did happen, it was with an agreement of both sides.

I'm against minors being raped by a perverted monster in a humanoid husk, but if a minor agrees on doing that, so be it. That girl wanted to be a whore, she was one and had her 15 minutes of fame. Now she can get fat and give birth to 20 childeren while watching reruns of Oprah all day long.

 

[Engar]

One might say that a girl as young as 13 couldn't give informed consent.. I'm not sure how I feel about that - I like to think I was a rational free-agent at 13 - but that is the law..

Odin, when you say 'in your opinion' it was Kelly in the video, do you mean to say you watched the video and know for sure it was Kelly? Or that you watched the video and are pretty sure it was Kelly? Or you never watched the video but you're willing to believe it's Kelly?

I just don't see how you can have an opinion on something that's either true or false..

 

[Odin]

I've seen the video, and I've seen a lot of the evidence that matched the video with his case, helping prove that it was him in the video. I only put "imo" because I figured if I just stated it was him then someone would say "well he was proven not guilty so you cant state it was him as a fact.". Therefore I stated it as my opinion because thats what I believe to be true. MTV also did some coverage over the trial before he was found not guilty and listed all evidence he had against him and for him during his case. I found the stuff he had against him was much more convincing than what he had going for him.

 

[Spunky]

He was ultimately found not guilty, so it doesn't matter what anybody believes at this point.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

its me... R KELLY

 

[Zeonix]

He didn't commit statuatory rape, but he's writing a book about how he'd have done it if he did.

 

[L]

He didn't commit statuatory rape, but he's writing a book about how he'd have done it if he did.

.. Why?
Didn't O.J write a book about his case or something as well?

Why to people write books about how they would've done something?
Reverse psychology? D:

Also, if the girl did sleep with him, it was her(their) decision to be horndogs.
It's against the law, but they were both not wanting to get in trouble or it just wasn't them.

 

[vahn9]

man i seen that r kelly porno before that **** is him i know someone else had to see it when that girl was dancing to nsync there are like 7 of those videos if you go down to like a ghetto video store you can rent it porno section promise i seen that movie back in 2005

 

[[S]]

He was ultimately found not guilty, so it doesn't matter what anybody believes at this point.

Spunky if you have no opinion on it please refrain from posting the person who started this thread has asked you so please respect his request.

 

[-Origin]

Spam just gets a broader definition by the day over here.

...and yes, I realize this post adds nothing to the thread either.

Therefore, I give you...

My work here is done.

 

[Odin]

I don't think S was talking to spunky because of spam, but more because he didn't contribute anything to the thread..And i did ask that if he didn't have anything to contribute to not post..so its not a very hard concept to understand

 

[KidMan]

If I was in R. Kelly's position, I would have been guilty.



I think he's guilty.

 

[-Origin]

I don't think S was talking to spunky because of spam, but more because he didn't contribute anything to the thread..And i did ask that if he didn't have anything to contribute to not post..so its not a very hard concept to understand

Doesn't not contributing to the thread classify as spam?

 

[Odin]

I always saw spam as something that had nothing to do with the thread, Spunky on the other hand said something that was related to the thread, but didn't contribute to the discussion. I guess you could consider them one in the same, but It's very easy to tell them apart as well