sdot23
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2006
Posts: 6,354
|
Post by sdot23 on Jun 13, 2008 14:12:38 GMT -5
Breaking News: R. Kelly Jury Reaches VerdictJune 13, 2008, 2:50 PM ET The jury in the R. Kelly child pornography case has reached a verdict after less than a day of deliberations. Judge Vincent Gaughan is scheduled to read the verdict this afternoon (June 13). Kelly is charged with 14 counts of videotaping himself having sex with an underage girl, who prosecutors say was as young as 13. If convicted, he faces a minimum of four years in prison and a maximum of 15 years. He would also have to register as a sex offender in Illinois. Earlier today, a juror sent a note to the judge after three hours of deliberation that read: "How can I be removed and go home? I really need to." Gaughan called attorneys into the courtroom, told them about the note but adjourned before dealing with the matter. The jury had stopped deliberating for lunch. Earlier in the morning, the judge called attorneys in to discuss another juror, who became frustrated by slow service during dinner the night before and started banging a bottle on the table and cursing. That juror was allowed to remain on the panel after other jurors indicated they could continue working with him. www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003816472
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,110
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jun 13, 2008 14:13:48 GMT -5
OMG! Finally!!
|
|
sdot23
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2006
Posts: 6,354
|
Post by sdot23 on Jun 13, 2008 14:18:02 GMT -5
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,110
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jun 13, 2008 14:19:14 GMT -5
OMG. I don't even want to read that article, then...
|
|
sdot23
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2006
Posts: 6,354
|
Post by sdot23 on Jun 13, 2008 14:27:12 GMT -5
It's being reported by Yahoo too. I know a A LOT of people that are gonna be upset.
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,110
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jun 13, 2008 14:28:11 GMT -5
I love his music but damn, will this man EVER be held accountable for his actions?!
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 14:31:40 GMT -5
That verdict reaches new lows of sad, pathetic and disgusting.
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,110
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jun 13, 2008 14:39:25 GMT -5
Only in America, folks...any other country, his ass would be emasculated...
|
|
|
Post by rydeordie on Jun 13, 2008 14:43:30 GMT -5
Only in America, folks...any other country, his ass would be emasculated... The Esmasculation Of KelKel
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,110
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jun 13, 2008 14:44:38 GMT -5
HAHAHAH...you know, R. Kelly is really religious, too! So religious that he made a whole gospel album AND pees on little girls! -smh-
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 14:47:08 GMT -5
It's funny that this took nearly a decade to go to trial and it's over so fast.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 13, 2008 14:51:57 GMT -5
It is funny how people are all upset when they haven't even heard the testimony. Even the legal analysts on the biased network Fox News said that R. Kelly would likely be found NOT GUILTY weeks ago because of the testimony that was being given.
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,110
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jun 13, 2008 14:53:54 GMT -5
It doesn't mean a perversion of justice didn't take place just because there were technicalities and fraudulent/incredible witnesses...
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 14:54:37 GMT -5
HAHAHAH...you know, R. Kelly is really religious, too! So religious that he made a whole gospel album AND pees on little girls! -smh- Maybe he drinks nothing but holy water. And is therefore performing baptisms? Those girls should consider themselves blessed.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 14:55:10 GMT -5
It is funny how people are all upset when they haven't even heard the testimony. Even the legal analysts on the biased network Fox News said that R. Kelly would likely be found NOT GUILTY weeks ago because of the testimony that was being given. I saw the video. No testimony needed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 14:56:47 GMT -5
The girl supposedly in the video denied it was her, she had family members who denied it was her, they couldn't find R. Kelly's identifying marks on the man in the video... I really believe it may not be him in the video. People just wanted the law to come down on him hard even though no one is 100% sure that's him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 14:57:28 GMT -5
It is funny how people are all upset when they haven't even heard the testimony. Even the legal analysts on the biased network Fox News said that R. Kelly would likely be found NOT GUILTY weeks ago because of the testimony that was being given. I saw the video. No testimony needed. Then the only person who is definitely guilty is you because you viewed and distributed child pornography.
|
|
|
Post by rydeordie on Jun 13, 2008 14:58:27 GMT -5
lmao okay lets not start prosecuting eachother
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 14:58:43 GMT -5
I saw the video. No testimony needed. Then the only person who is definitely guilty is you because you viewed and distributed child pornography. Riiiiiiight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 14:59:35 GMT -5
Then the only person who is definitely guilty is you because you viewed and distributed child pornography. Riiiiiiight. Well you incriminated yourself, so don't get snarky.
|
|
|
Post by rydeordie on Jun 13, 2008 15:00:08 GMT -5
lmao okay lets not start prosecuting eachother Srsly!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 15:01:38 GMT -5
Sorry. I never viewed the video, and I think anyone viewing it for entertainment purposes (which is anyone besides laws officials and the jury) is a pervert and breaking one of the most serious laws. Sexual exploitation of children is no joke. I don't see how someone can want the books to come down hard on the man when they're sitting on their computer downloading child porn. That's sick.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 15:03:28 GMT -5
Well you incriminated yourself, so don't get snarky. ANYWAY, I'm glad I did verify it for myself. Makes me all the more disgusted at this verdict.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 15:05:42 GMT -5
Sorry. I never viewed the video, and I think anyone viewing it for entertainment purposes (which is anyone besides laws officials and the jury) is a pervert and breaking one of the most serious laws. Sexual exploitation of children is no joke. I don't see how someone can want the books to come down hard on the man when they're sitting on their computer downloading child porn. That's sick. Sorry, those who view the video are not checking it out for "entertainment purposes". A lot of people checked it out simply to see if it was indeed R. on the damn tape. To me, this verdict is what's sick.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 15:07:24 GMT -5
Sorry. I never viewed the video, and I think anyone viewing it for entertainment purposes (which is anyone besides laws officials and the jury) is a pervert and breaking one of the most serious laws. Sexual exploitation of children is no joke. I don't see how someone can want the books to come down hard on the man when they're sitting on their computer downloading child porn. That's sick. Sorry, those who view the video are not checking it out for "entertainment purposes". A lot of people checked it out simply to see if it was indeed R. on the damn tape. Well the only people whose call it was to make were law officials and the jury. Everyone else was breaking child pornography laws.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Jun 13, 2008 15:11:16 GMT -5
Sorry, those who view the video are not checking it out for "entertainment purposes". A lot of people checked it out simply to see if it was indeed R. on the damn tape. Well the only people whose call it was to make were law officials and the jury. Everyone else was breaking child pornography laws. Sure, everyone's guilty except the perpetrator. This is one crazy world.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 14, 2008 1:03:05 GMT -5
It is funny how people are all upset when they haven't even heard the testimony. Even the legal analysts on the biased network Fox News said that R. Kelly would likely be found NOT GUILTY weeks ago because of the testimony that was being given. I saw the video. No testimony needed. Did you know that the defense was able to show that the video was not him? Did you also know that the "victim" said it was not her? Fox news was saying weeks ago that this case was a tough sell because there just wasn't strong enough evidence and listed these reasons as to why. This was before the case had even ended. Bill O'Reilly's show hit the nail right on the head. You saw a video someone, but it wasn't the alledged victim. That's the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 14, 2008 1:08:59 GMT -5
Sorry, those who view the video are not checking it out for "entertainment purposes". A lot of people checked it out simply to see if it was indeed R. on the damn tape. Well the only people whose call it was to make were law officials and the jury. Everyone else was breaking child pornography laws. We don't know that. It's likely they aren't breaking any child porn laws because no children are on the tape.
|
|
Live™
Platinum Member
"A Millionaire, I'm a young money millionaire tougher than nigerian hair"
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,180
|
Post by Live™ on Jun 14, 2008 18:05:53 GMT -5
im so glad all that "child porn" crap is cleared but "hair braider" is such a stupid song
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Jun 14, 2008 18:11:28 GMT -5
R. Kelly Jurors Agreed Singer Was On The Sex Tape -- They Just Weren't Sure About The GirlPlus: Alternate jurors say they were leaning toward a guilty verdict. By Jennifer Vineyard CHICAGO -- The jurors in the R. Kelly child-pornography trial didn't doubt whether it was the singer on the tape — they just doubted whether it was the girl prosecutors said it was. "I thought it was R. Kelly on the tape," juror #9 said after the verdict was rendered. "I just wasn't 100 percent on the girl." The five jurors who agreed to speak to the press following their not-guilty verdict said they felt the state hadn't presented enough evidence and that having the alleged victim on the stand would have made the difference. "The key problem was the identity of the female," juror #23 said. "Her absence was a major lack." "The family was too divided," said juror #9, who in the preliminary votes had voted for a guilty verdict. "So you had to discount the family testimony either way." This didn't mean that the jurors bought all the defense arguments wholesale. The missing mole, for instance, was a non-issue, they said. They didn't want to examine the video any further, either. "I've seen that video way too many times," juror #21 said. "The first time was too many." Being sequestered — and the prospect of remaining sequestered over Father's Day — was not a factor in their quick verdict, they said. "We wanted to go home, but we knew what we had to do," said juror #21. Nodding in agreement was juror #40, who just earlier that day had asked to be relieved of duty. Had he — or juror #40 — been relieved, the vote would have gone very differently, said the three alternates who were dismissed earlier in the day. Jurors 65, 73 and 72 said in a separate news conference before the verdict was rendered that they were leaning toward guilty. "My opinion leans towards that it is him with the girl in the video," said juror #65. Things might have also gone differently had evidence of Kelly's marriage to a then-15-year-old Aaliyah or the criminal sexual conduct lawsuits against him been part of the case, the seated jurors said, but that was not what they were given to consider. "I didn't even know about that," juror #23 said. "But as jurors, we have to act within the confines of the law and what is legally presented." "It's all just speculation," juror #21 said. "Who knows what we would have found [otherwise]?" www.mtv.com/news/articles/1589342/20080613/kelly_r.jhtml
|
|