Latest on MJJC
The Official R. Kelly Trial Thread
- Thread starter Bee.
- Start date
Datsymay
Proud Member
I think if he is convicted there will be an appeal. You just can't convict someone without evidence. If the giorl says it isn't her, then they have to prove that the girl on the tape was under the legal ager limit. I don't know how they are going to prove that, even though Rkelly's defence is as lousy as Sneddon's case.
hopespringseternal
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,333
- Points
- 0
R.Kelly is going to be acquitted bottom line, the case is messy all over the place and there is enough reasonable doubt to go around.
Datsymay
Proud Member
I don't even understand why there was a trial at all, if all they had to go on was the tape. They don't know who was on that tape so what was the point of a trial without a body. The gorl says it isn't her. She is an adult now and still maintains that it wasn't her. Unless they have hard evidence that it is her they shouldn't have started this trial.
mistermaxxx
Proud Member
the Man should easily walk and nothing is set in stone and i want to see his Genius shine again musically.
Datsymay
Proud Member
He needs to behave himself when he walks though. I notice he got a lot of black men very angry. That isn't good. He has lost much of the confidence of his people. he needs to start respecting his black women.
memyselfni
Proud Member
He needs to behave himself when he walks though. I notice he got a lot of black men very angry. That isn't good. He has lost much of the confidence of his people. he needs to start respecting his black women.
only because hes a celeb. this goes on in many black neighborhoods. many teenage females pregnant by older black men. and theres no outrage. many are only focused on this story cause it involves a celeb. and i agree he does need to start respecting his black women, especially his wife cause he done put her through hell. and he has two daughters and i'm sure he wouldnt like it when they got older and some man disrespected them~
Last edited:
144000
Proud Member
some people can get married underage in some states. i know enough. pls don't tell me what to do if u r talking to me.
Last edited:
Datsymay
Proud Member
What you saying is true. but I think the anger is in the detail, more than anything else.
troubleman84
Proud Member
In Chicago, I think you can date a teen when they turn 17. I think that's the age you can marry to there but I'm not too sure. Anyway, Aaliyah was still too young. Guess he couldn't wait.
Soso Deaf
Proud Member
Re: f.y.i.
i never attributed that penal code to illinois...i stated that's y they make laws like that b/c it's simply too difficult to convict pedophiles.
it's a federal issue b/c it's a child porn trial. that's what made it take so long, gone through so many courts , and he's facing the time he's facing....and also why he hasn't been offered a deal.
& vnc when i address you, i'll make it known.
he married aaliyah ILLEGALLY when she was 15. dating and marraige are two different things. the age of consent is different in every state but not by way of marriage...u still need a parent or guardian to sign off of it in you're under 18
i never attributed that penal code to illinois...i stated that's y they make laws like that b/c it's simply too difficult to convict pedophiles.
it's a federal issue b/c it's a child porn trial. that's what made it take so long, gone through so many courts , and he's facing the time he's facing....and also why he hasn't been offered a deal.
& vnc when i address you, i'll make it known.
he married aaliyah ILLEGALLY when she was 15. dating and marraige are two different things. the age of consent is different in every state but not by way of marriage...u still need a parent or guardian to sign off of it in you're under 18
memyselfni
Proud Member
i'm done here now....SMDH
this isnt a federal case, if it was
it would be held in a federal courthouse
in front of a federal judge.
cook county is trying this case.
federal court and state court are two different things
his case is being held in state court
but believe what you want.
it would be held in a federal courthouse
in front of a federal judge.
cook county is trying this case.
federal court and state court are two different things
his case is being held in state court
but believe what you want.
Last edited:
Defense Rests
More mole testimony expected in prosecution's rebuttal
1:27 PM CDT, June 9, 2008
After the surprising close to the defense case early Monday after just two days, the prosecution will begin its rebuttal to the defense's case Tuesday.
The prosecution plans to again call Grant Frederics, a forensic video analyst who found what appeared to be a mole on the back of the sex tape's male participant.
During opening statements, the defense dropped a potential bombshell when it told jurors that Kelly has had a mole on his back since childhood and that since there was no mole on the back of the male participant in the video, Kelly could not be the man on the tape.
Frederics is expected to rehash some of his earlier testimony and to rebut testimony from the defense's forensic expert, Dr. Charles Palm, who said in his examination of the videotape that he could not find a mole.
The prosecution also plans to call an assistant district attorney from Atlanta. Robert Wolf is expected to deny suggestions that Lisa Van Allen, who testified she had a three-way sexual encounter with Kelly and the alleged underage victim, was given a deal to testify in the Kelly case.
During the trial, the defense not so subtly suggested that Van Allen's boyfriend, a felon who was recently arrested for the possession of a loaded AK-47 and drugs in his suburban Atlanta home, was given probation by the Fulton County district attorney's office because Van Allen testified in the trial.
Court will resume Tuesday with defense motions at 10 a.m., before the prosecution begins its rebuttal.
------
In my opinion, the defense's claim that R. Kelly's head was perfectly digitally added to the 27-minutes of grainy footage is laughable at best.
More mole testimony expected in prosecution's rebuttal
1:27 PM CDT, June 9, 2008
After the surprising close to the defense case early Monday after just two days, the prosecution will begin its rebuttal to the defense's case Tuesday.
The prosecution plans to again call Grant Frederics, a forensic video analyst who found what appeared to be a mole on the back of the sex tape's male participant.
During opening statements, the defense dropped a potential bombshell when it told jurors that Kelly has had a mole on his back since childhood and that since there was no mole on the back of the male participant in the video, Kelly could not be the man on the tape.
Frederics is expected to rehash some of his earlier testimony and to rebut testimony from the defense's forensic expert, Dr. Charles Palm, who said in his examination of the videotape that he could not find a mole.
The prosecution also plans to call an assistant district attorney from Atlanta. Robert Wolf is expected to deny suggestions that Lisa Van Allen, who testified she had a three-way sexual encounter with Kelly and the alleged underage victim, was given a deal to testify in the Kelly case.
During the trial, the defense not so subtly suggested that Van Allen's boyfriend, a felon who was recently arrested for the possession of a loaded AK-47 and drugs in his suburban Atlanta home, was given probation by the Fulton County district attorney's office because Van Allen testified in the trial.
Court will resume Tuesday with defense motions at 10 a.m., before the prosecution begins its rebuttal.
------
In my opinion, the defense's claim that R. Kelly's head was perfectly digitally added to the 27-minutes of grainy footage is laughable at best.
Last edited:
mello1
Proud Member
mello1
Proud Member
I would hope that he wouldn't want anyone to have sex with them at all, but particularly if they are under the legal age of consent.
memyselfni
Proud Member
Re: i'm done here now....SMDH
thank you at least someone else knows this...now i rest my case.
Datsymay
Proud Member
The defence puzzled me. it is almost as if they were unprpared, as if they did not believe their client and was just clutching at straw. I still do not see how he can be convicted though, esp if they cannot prove that the girl was on the tape.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
how many years waiting and then its case of blink and you will miss the trial. all these years to get things ready and it still all over the place
memyselfni
Proud Member
Kelly's lawyers hoped to show that singer might not be the man on the video, girl wasn't underage.
CHICAGO — After just two days of testimony from 12 witnesses, the defense rested in R. Kelly's child-pornography trial, with only rebuttal and closing arguments to go.
Anyone expecting the R&B singer or the girl in question to take the stand was sorely disappointed. Compared to the explosive testimony of Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards or "threesome woman" Lisa Van Allen, there was no star witness for the defense — no one whose credibility could make or break the case. Instead, the singer's defense team focused on poking holes in the prosecution's case wherever it could — even at the risk of underdeveloping its own case.
Here's what the defense focused on and how Kelly's lawyers will piece it together in closing arguments, his last chance to convince the jury to acquit him:
Is R. Kelly the man on the tape?
Kelly's team has been steadfast in denying that the singer is on the tape. So who was it? They've suggested the man is a look-alike who lacks one of Kelly's distinguishing marks: a large mole on the lower left of his back. The prosecution's forensic video analyst slowed down a half-second's worth of footage from the sex tape and showed that the mole was visible, but then the defense's expert testified that this dark mark on the man's back was no mole, since it came and went, making it a possible artifact of electronic noise. Expect the prosecution's expert to take the stand Tuesday to rebut this assessment.
But whoever this look-alike is — and Kelly's team provided no suggestions as to the man's identity — he (or his cohorts) must have had access to the singer's home, this much the defense conceded. Though Kelly's lawyers alluded to the singer's rigorous tour schedule, they did not present his frequent out-of-town dates for an alibi. Nor did his lawyers present any evidence or witnesses regarding the room where the tape was shot, to demonstrate who else may have had access.
Instead, the defense talked about conspiracy theories, suggesting that there are many people who would want to set Kelly up. First and foremost on the list would be former mistress Van Allen, who testified that she had a threesome with the singer and the girl in question. Rather than present a string of character witnesses to testify that Kelly is not the type of man to do such a thing, the defense had a string of impeachment witnesses to testify that Van Allen is the type of person who would lie and steal to get what she wants and, in this case, get money in order not to testify. Since Van Allen was granted immunity, it would have been easy for her to admit that she did try to extort money from Kelly with an authentic tape of their sexual encounter. By denying that, she made herself (and her fiance, Yul Brown) an easy target for the defense, which dismantled her motives with three witnesses. (Three more were planned but never took the stand.)
Next on the conspiracy-theory hit list would be former protégé Sparkle, former manager Barry Hankerson, and Chicago Sun-Times reporter Jim DeRogatis. But the defense didn't develop these three as fall guys as much as they did Van Allen. With Sparkle, Kelly lawyer Ed Genson insinuated during cross-examination that she was still bitter over being dropped from Kelly's record label and that she had some business dealings with Hankerson, but the jury never heard from Hankerson — nor did they hear who Hankerson was or why he might be out to get Kelly. Same for DeRogatis, who took the Fifth when he took the stand, outside the presence of the jury. Any conspiracy theory involving these three will have to be made via argument, not evidence.
Was the girl on the tape underage?
To counter the dozen people — four relatives, three childhood friends (along with three of their parents) and two basketball coaches — who identified the girl on the tape, the defense presented three separate relatives who denied it was their loved one. Plus, the relatives that the defense presented were well-spoken and didn't contradict themselves — unlike the prosecution's witnesses, whose memories were a little fuzzy, especially for the uncle arrested for crack cocaine possession. This helped spread confusion: If there's no consensus in the family, there might be no consensus in the jury room.
Only aunts, uncles and cousins took the stand, but no immediate family. So where was the girl herself? Or her parents? Defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. made a big point in his opening argument that if this terrible thing had indeed happened to this young woman, why wasn't her mother there demanding justice? With no victim, there must be no crime, he implied. If there had been a crime, wouldn't the girl have told one of her friends or relatives or coaches, two of whom were cops? Since there was no outcry, since no one — save Sparkle, and only in hindsight — saw anything inappropriate between Kelly and his goddaughter, there's no proof of molestation, they say. Plus, like Kelly, the girl traveled a lot during the time frame prosecutors say the tape was made: her eighth-grade year.
To counteract all the people who so earnestly believe it is their friend or relative on the tape, the defense suggested that it is her head — but not her body — on the tape, which must have been doctored. That way, the defense doesn't have to attack crying mothers on the stand; they're not lying, just mistaken.
Could the tape have been fabricated?
The defense team's forensic video expert made a version of the tape in which he put a background of the log-cabin room in Kelly's home on a loop, then placed the man and the girl on the tape in a superimposed layer, and then made their heads disappear while they were having sex. This, he said, only took a few hours of work over a few afternoons and showed how a tape could be faked. Still, he conceded, there would be evidence of fakery.
The defense argues that the tape must be a fake and that the people in it must be paid actors or prostitutes. But two experts — one from the FBI — countered that the tape is authentic. For the jury, it becomes a battle of the experts. Which one do they believe: The prosecution expert, who really seemed to know what he was talking about and showed them how the mole, upon close inspection, was visible, or the defense expert, who wasn't as credentialed but showed them headless sex worthy of Washington Irving? If the jury buys the "Little Man" defense — which even Shawn Wayans doesn't give much credence to — then Kelly has a shot.
Kelly's team has to pull all this into a convincing argument — one that ties together all the loose ends and shows that certain inconsistencies in state witnesses' testimony were a product of conspiracies, not just faulty memories thanks to the trial's delay. For Kelly to go free, this jury needs to believe that there's been an elaborate scheme to "get him" — that he's the victim here, not the girl who didn't even bother to show up.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/158.../kelly_r.jhtml
CHICAGO — After just two days of testimony from 12 witnesses, the defense rested in R. Kelly's child-pornography trial, with only rebuttal and closing arguments to go.
Anyone expecting the R&B singer or the girl in question to take the stand was sorely disappointed. Compared to the explosive testimony of Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards or "threesome woman" Lisa Van Allen, there was no star witness for the defense — no one whose credibility could make or break the case. Instead, the singer's defense team focused on poking holes in the prosecution's case wherever it could — even at the risk of underdeveloping its own case.
Here's what the defense focused on and how Kelly's lawyers will piece it together in closing arguments, his last chance to convince the jury to acquit him:
Is R. Kelly the man on the tape?
Kelly's team has been steadfast in denying that the singer is on the tape. So who was it? They've suggested the man is a look-alike who lacks one of Kelly's distinguishing marks: a large mole on the lower left of his back. The prosecution's forensic video analyst slowed down a half-second's worth of footage from the sex tape and showed that the mole was visible, but then the defense's expert testified that this dark mark on the man's back was no mole, since it came and went, making it a possible artifact of electronic noise. Expect the prosecution's expert to take the stand Tuesday to rebut this assessment.
But whoever this look-alike is — and Kelly's team provided no suggestions as to the man's identity — he (or his cohorts) must have had access to the singer's home, this much the defense conceded. Though Kelly's lawyers alluded to the singer's rigorous tour schedule, they did not present his frequent out-of-town dates for an alibi. Nor did his lawyers present any evidence or witnesses regarding the room where the tape was shot, to demonstrate who else may have had access.
Instead, the defense talked about conspiracy theories, suggesting that there are many people who would want to set Kelly up. First and foremost on the list would be former mistress Van Allen, who testified that she had a threesome with the singer and the girl in question. Rather than present a string of character witnesses to testify that Kelly is not the type of man to do such a thing, the defense had a string of impeachment witnesses to testify that Van Allen is the type of person who would lie and steal to get what she wants and, in this case, get money in order not to testify. Since Van Allen was granted immunity, it would have been easy for her to admit that she did try to extort money from Kelly with an authentic tape of their sexual encounter. By denying that, she made herself (and her fiance, Yul Brown) an easy target for the defense, which dismantled her motives with three witnesses. (Three more were planned but never took the stand.)
Next on the conspiracy-theory hit list would be former protégé Sparkle, former manager Barry Hankerson, and Chicago Sun-Times reporter Jim DeRogatis. But the defense didn't develop these three as fall guys as much as they did Van Allen. With Sparkle, Kelly lawyer Ed Genson insinuated during cross-examination that she was still bitter over being dropped from Kelly's record label and that she had some business dealings with Hankerson, but the jury never heard from Hankerson — nor did they hear who Hankerson was or why he might be out to get Kelly. Same for DeRogatis, who took the Fifth when he took the stand, outside the presence of the jury. Any conspiracy theory involving these three will have to be made via argument, not evidence.
Was the girl on the tape underage?
To counter the dozen people — four relatives, three childhood friends (along with three of their parents) and two basketball coaches — who identified the girl on the tape, the defense presented three separate relatives who denied it was their loved one. Plus, the relatives that the defense presented were well-spoken and didn't contradict themselves — unlike the prosecution's witnesses, whose memories were a little fuzzy, especially for the uncle arrested for crack cocaine possession. This helped spread confusion: If there's no consensus in the family, there might be no consensus in the jury room.
Only aunts, uncles and cousins took the stand, but no immediate family. So where was the girl herself? Or her parents? Defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. made a big point in his opening argument that if this terrible thing had indeed happened to this young woman, why wasn't her mother there demanding justice? With no victim, there must be no crime, he implied. If there had been a crime, wouldn't the girl have told one of her friends or relatives or coaches, two of whom were cops? Since there was no outcry, since no one — save Sparkle, and only in hindsight — saw anything inappropriate between Kelly and his goddaughter, there's no proof of molestation, they say. Plus, like Kelly, the girl traveled a lot during the time frame prosecutors say the tape was made: her eighth-grade year.
To counteract all the people who so earnestly believe it is their friend or relative on the tape, the defense suggested that it is her head — but not her body — on the tape, which must have been doctored. That way, the defense doesn't have to attack crying mothers on the stand; they're not lying, just mistaken.
Could the tape have been fabricated?
The defense team's forensic video expert made a version of the tape in which he put a background of the log-cabin room in Kelly's home on a loop, then placed the man and the girl on the tape in a superimposed layer, and then made their heads disappear while they were having sex. This, he said, only took a few hours of work over a few afternoons and showed how a tape could be faked. Still, he conceded, there would be evidence of fakery.
The defense argues that the tape must be a fake and that the people in it must be paid actors or prostitutes. But two experts — one from the FBI — countered that the tape is authentic. For the jury, it becomes a battle of the experts. Which one do they believe: The prosecution expert, who really seemed to know what he was talking about and showed them how the mole, upon close inspection, was visible, or the defense expert, who wasn't as credentialed but showed them headless sex worthy of Washington Irving? If the jury buys the "Little Man" defense — which even Shawn Wayans doesn't give much credence to — then Kelly has a shot.
Kelly's team has to pull all this into a convincing argument — one that ties together all the loose ends and shows that certain inconsistencies in state witnesses' testimony were a product of conspiracies, not just faulty memories thanks to the trial's delay. For Kelly to go free, this jury needs to believe that there's been an elaborate scheme to "get him" — that he's the victim here, not the girl who didn't even bother to show up.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/158.../kelly_r.jhtml
mistermaxxx
Proud Member
Soso Deaf
Proud Member
lame lame lame....child pornography is a federal damn issue....that's y when there's a raid, the fbi usually has people present.
how much u wanna bet that if this fool gets off, the feds won't come and find new charges off of the same evidence and charge him?
either he's not the man in teh video or the girl isn't underage...or is it both...or is it his brother, or is themole digitally altered...y fuuuck w/ a mole when they can juxtapose your face on the 'man's' body? or is the sex act in a room u know nothing of even though it's a very well known room in ur house?
several confidential settlements, a marriage to an underage girl, and waterworkx....nasty as hell....feds will swoop and get his ass...he must feel like rockwell...cuz someone's watching him...
and no, it won'tbe double jeopardy b/c they'lluse the same evidence for a different charge.
how much u wanna bet that if this fool gets off, the feds won't come and find new charges off of the same evidence and charge him?
either he's not the man in teh video or the girl isn't underage...or is it both...or is it his brother, or is themole digitally altered...y fuuuck w/ a mole when they can juxtapose your face on the 'man's' body? or is the sex act in a room u know nothing of even though it's a very well known room in ur house?
several confidential settlements, a marriage to an underage girl, and waterworkx....nasty as hell....feds will swoop and get his ass...he must feel like rockwell...cuz someone's watching him...
and no, it won'tbe double jeopardy b/c they'lluse the same evidence for a different charge.
memyselfni
Proud Member
R. Kelly trial is forced to debate quality of DVD vs. video
Prosecutor tells judge she wrongly informed jurors that a DVD was an exact copy of the sex tape at the heart of the child porn case
Testimony in the R. Kelly trial ended with an unusual controversy Tuesday as the prosecution acknowledged it presented faulty evidence to the jury.
Cook County Assistant State's Atty. Shauna Boliker told the judge she wrongly informed jurors that a DVD used during testimony was an exact copy of the sex tape at the heart of the child pornography case. In fact, the images on the video were compressed and lost significant detail when they were transferred to the disc, she said.
It's unclear how the matter will be addressed.
The jury, which was not in the courtroom when the mistake was acknowledged, was dismissed Tuesday without being told of the flawed evidence.
Circuit Judge Vincent Gaughan ordered jurors to return Thursday for closing arguments.
Kelly, 41, has denied involvement in a sex tape that authorities say shows him engaging in a variety of sexual acts with a girl as young as 13. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison.
Prosecutors attested to the DVD's veracity last week in a stipulation, a brief statement read in open court and agreed to by attorneys from both sides.
After the reading, the R&B superstar's attorneys presented expert testimony based on the supposed accuracy of both the disc and stipulation. The defense, for example, used the DVD to show jurors that sex tape's male participant does not have a mole on his back.
Kelly, in contrast, has had a caterpillar-shaped mark along his spine since childhood, his attorneys said.
The mole has become the surprise crux of the defense case, with Kelly's lawyers saying the tape and the male participant's unblemished back would set the singer free. In opening statements, they told the jury that it would not see a mole in the 27-minute video.
The DVD supports those assertions, lead defense attorney Edward Genson said.
"I relied on it—and all of a sudden [the prosecution] made a mistake," Genson told the judge. "It's not fair."
The prosecution learned about the DVD's deficiencies on Monday night, Boliker said. She blamed the error on "dumb lawyers" who simply wanted the disc so they could more easily show shortened clips from the original video.
But instead of telling the jury—or the judge—that the stipulation was incorrect, prosecutors on Tuesday called a forensic video expert for rebuttal testimony. Analyst Grant Fredericks ridiculed a defense expert for relying on the DVD and showed 17 still images taken from the uncompressed sex tape.
In all 17 photographs, a dark mark appears on the male participant's back. When those same images are taken from the faulty DVD, the spot only appears in two frames.
Kelly's defense team cried foul, telling the judge that the prosecution made the error, then called a witness to make the defense look foolish and dishonest.
"The stipulation is wrong," Genson said. "We put a man on based on that, and they put [another expert] up there to rebut him—and that's not right."
The judge also expressed concern about the prosecution's error and called an hourlong recess to consider the issue.
"The stipulation is not true," Gaughan said angrily. "This is the rotten tomato in the barrel."
After reviewing the transcripts, the judge said it was clear the defense had access to an uncompressed, unaltered cassette copy of tape, in addition to the disc. Gaughan then asked the prosecution and defense to work together to resolve the matter.
The two sides huddled for nearly an hour before returning to courtroom and telling the judge they intended to put their agreement in writing. Details of the pact were not announced in open court.
Though Kelly fell asleep at the defense table while his attorneys worked out a deal with prosecutors, he appeared to be closely following the courtroom discussion about the faulty evidence. Earlier, he spoke in open court for the first time since introducing himself to prospective jurors May 9.
Kelly, who waived his right to testify, answered questions about the decision from the judge.
Last edited:
Superstition
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,521
- Points
- 63
The defense probably tried to wrap this up quickly hoping it would show the flawed case, and quickly add doubt to the jurors minds. I think it's a good strategy if that's the case. Then this.... ridiculous. Of course, I still see no way that they can convict R. Kelly. Yeah, he's got a real shoddy history (all the prosecution has to say if they haven't already is that he married a 15 year-old girl in Aaliyah) and there you go. However, that's not what this is about. This is about the girl and the man on the tape, and I see now way to convict him over that.
Soso Deaf
Proud Member
here's a basic sentence found in a criminal damn law book about child porn...
" The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) makes child pornography one of its top priorities. They aggressively track down and charge people for crimes of child pornography on the internet......."
not only do they launch stings on the internet but when an allegation is made or evidence is found, they're consulted first.
so the legal loophole that could result in a not guilty verdict can then be re-prosecuted under something else via the fbi
" The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) makes child pornography one of its top priorities. They aggressively track down and charge people for crimes of child pornography on the internet......."
not only do they launch stings on the internet but when an allegation is made or evidence is found, they're consulted first.
so the legal loophole that could result in a not guilty verdict can then be re-prosecuted under something else via the fbi
I think it's going to be an acquittal or mistrial if he is convicted i would be stunned then again i never thought Mike Tyson would be convicted either.
Datsymay
Proud Member
I woluld have said that earlier. But his defence was so inadequate, he is almost begging to be convicted. I have never heard such a weak defence in my life. It sounds as if he is clutching at straw.
hopespringseternal
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,333
- Points
- 0
That's what makes me somewhat nervous for him, all along i believed he'd be acquitted but his lawyers never seemed to rise up to the occasion and lawyer as well as the pros did and that bothered me, you'd have to think that Robert has spent millions upon millions the past 6 years and to me they gave him a sorry defense they didn't do what they were paid to do, if he wins this case all i can say is that the jury sides with the reasonable doubt factor because Rob definitely didn't have a TMEZ that's for sure.
Last edited:
Soso Deaf
Proud Member
don't worry...once an allegation is made on someone and it's that severe, the person is forever watched by the fbi....