The Official R. Kelly Trial Thread

Bee.

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,118
Points
0
**** him, poor michael had to go through hell for something he never did, and this low life gets off, even after haveing hard evidence that it was him on the tape.

You know what? This proves that the legal system is a joke. You know what - compare this trial to MJ's because everyone else is doing it! That sicko can party but MJ can't! This whole thing disgust me and I knew the jurors knew that he did it but R. Kelly must have paid them to aquit him. Disgusting. MJ suffered for nothing but Kels can do whatever he wants. I hope they caught him again.
 

memyselfni

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
288
Points
0
Location
los angeles
You know what? This proves that the legal system is a joke. You know what - compare this trial to MJ's because everyone else is doing it! That sicko can party but MJ can't! This whole thing disgust me and I knew the jurors knew that he did it but R. Kelly must have paid them to aquit him. Disgusting. MJ suffered for nothing but Kels can do whatever he wants. I hope they caught him again.


Why can't MJ party hes a free man?

MJ can also do whatever he wants?

So i'm not understanding your rant.

MJ is a free man to go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants

Unless you know something that we don't?????

 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
have the jurrors said much else except for the bit on tmz? did they believe she was underage and knew it was her on the tape etc. surely the judge must have intrusted them to not make decisions just based on whether the girl testifyed or not.
 

Superstition

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,510
Points
0
guys...no mike in this thread...c'mon.

there can't be shaky testimony if there's a tape showing the crime.

Just so I'm clear, is there place on the forums where we can compare the trials? It's just discussion, so are we flat-out not allowed to discuss both guys in the same thread anywhere on the board? I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I'd just like to know. There are many parallels in the cases of both men, as well as distinct differences, that warrant discussion. So if they are not allowed in this thread, are they allowed anywhere?
 
Last edited:
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
create your own thread about it guess. they just dont want kelly threads turning into mj ones
 

memyselfni

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
288
Points
0
Location
los angeles
have the jurrors said much else except for the bit on tmz? did they believe she was underage and knew it was her on the tape etc. surely the judge must have intrusted them to not make decisions just based on whether the girl testifyed or not.

they couldnt prove it was the girl. even the pics the prosecution gave them to compare the girl to the female in the tape didnt resmeble each other.



CHICAGO - Much was made of whether R. Kelly was the man in the sex tape at the center of his child pornography trial. In the end, the R&B superstar walked away because the jury wasn’t convinced the female in the graphic video was the 13-year-old girl who prosecutors said she was.One juror even said he was certain it was Kelly on the tape. But by no means was that the crux of the charges.
“You want to be 100 percent sure it’s Kelly and (the alleged victim),” he said. “What we had wasn’t enough.”


‘People’s Exhibit No. 1’

Kelly and the now 23-year-old alleged victim had denied they were on the videotape. She never testified, nor did her parents, which several jurors cited as a weakness in the prosecution’s case.
One juror said he thought the woman’s body appeared too developed for 13. Another said prosecutors left too many questions unanswered.


The alleged victim’s family also presented a puzzle for the jury. Three relatives testified they did not recognize her as the female on the tape, while other relatives said that it was her.









http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25174823/
 
Last edited:

Soso Deaf

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
11,070
Points
0
Location
je suis de maroc
Hello people.



I have some rules here that I want everyone to respect:

1. Please, please, PLEASE do not even compare this trial to Michael's trial in ANY WAY! I do not care if you are trying to "make a point". Mike's trial and Kels' trial are two different things.

2. This thread is for news and discussion ONLY. Nothing else.

3. Please, try to be respectful and if you have somthing to post that is news worthy, please post it. Make sure the news information comes with links. Sidenote: I am iffy of posting things from gossip blogs such as tmz, bossip, or perezhilton.com. However, that doesn't mean that you cannot post them. Just that, I will not post them on here.

4. Do not bash others. Just make a point and leave it at that.

.

since this is bee's thread, i reckon we should all respect the terms in which it was started under....


and some of u may remember, there have been many r(ah) threads started on this board yet they've always been closed and deleted b/c it turns into an r kelly vs mj argument OR people go off on a tangent for no reason.

so again, let's leave mj out of it.....

but does anyone here think this was a not guilty from a techinicality instead of b/c he was genuinely innocent? :better:
 

Soso Deaf

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
11,070
Points
0
Location
je suis de maroc
Just so I'm clear, is there place on the forums where we can compare the trials? It's just discussion, so are we flat-out not allowed to discuss both guys in the same thread anywhere on the board? I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I'd just like to know. There are many parallels in the cases of both men, as well as distinct differences, that warrant discussion. So if they are not allowed in this thread, are they allowed anywhere?

yes there are many similarities and there are many differences but i think it would be more apropos to ask a senior admin before making such a thread b/c people get protective of mj and when they do that ,they tend to go a bit overboard. :doh:
 

Bee.

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,118
Points
0
Why can't MJ party hes a free man?

MJ can also do whatever he wants?

So i'm not understanding your rant

I am just ranting. LOL. That is all. I do not know if MJ partied after he was a free man. I do know that after the vindication, MJ went home and ate a turkey sandwich, according to Jermaine.

and some of u may remember, there have been many r(ah) threads started on this board yet they've always been closed and deleted b/c it turns into an r kelly vs mj argument OR people go off on a tangent for no reason

That is why I stated that MJ should not be discussed on this thread. However, now that we know the verdict in Kels trial, I do not mind some comparision. Just do not go overboard. I am just curious, Supersition, did you even follow the MJ trial and if you did, why do you "need to know" some things? There is an achiove section on here all about the trial. You can read about it. Just asking.

have the jurrors said much else except for the bit on tmz?

There is an MTV.com article that I read on thatGrapejuice.net:

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]?"

*shakes head*
 

browneyedgirl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
583
Points
0
Well, regardless of my disappointment with the verdict, it's good to see the jurors were doing their job fairly. It's all comes down to reasonable doubt. And although I don't agree with the jury, I can understand their position.
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
they couldnt prove it was the girl. even the pics the prosecution gave them to compare the girl to the female in the tape didnt resmeble each other.


thanks for that. with that being the case they came to the right decision based on the law and that is all u can do even if u think they are guilty.


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.

so none of that was allowed in? i take it they dont have a prior bad acts law in that state?
 

michaelsson

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
4,543
Points
48
i think r. kelly is very talented..but that tape shudda been enough 2 convict him..girl or not he is on tape having sex with a minor. So i dont understand what more do u need lol..4 her 2 be there with a birth certificate. As talented as he is there no excuse. The "man n the video" looks like r kelly, he talks like r kelly what more is there.
 

Datsymay

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,474
Points
0
Location
South East London
i think r. kelly is very talented..but that tape shudda been enough 2 convict him..girl or not he is on tape having sex with a minor. So i dont understand what more do u need lol..4 her 2 be there with a birth certificate. As talented as he is there no excuse. The "man n the video" looks like r kelly, he talks like r kelly what more is there.
The jury needed evidence that the girl was a minor. It could have been some 20 year old dressed up in school uniform. men are kinky that way. There was no evidence to say that the girl in question was the one on the tape. The girl said it wasn't her. That is reasonable doubt. You cannot put someone away just because you have a feeling about them You need hard evidence. It wasn't there in this case. This should have never have gone to trial in the first place. It was never a winnable case without a victim.
 

BONGANI

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
950
Points
0
Location
SOUTH AFRICA
Alot of die hard R Kelly fans still maintain his inocence, how narrow minded?
I wonder what they have to say about the pics that were found in florida of the same tape?
If my idol had this kind of evidence against him, I'd have no doubt in my mind he is guilty, forget fandom or talent, a criminal is a criminal..
 

Bee.

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,118
Points
0
Here is a question that I would like to ask anyone that fully supports Kels - did you honestly believe that he is a pedophile? Just curious.
 

neverlandprincess

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
314
Points
0
To be honest i don't teally know anything about him, all i know he is a musician and very talented.
He married Alliya when she was fifteen. I personally don't know what to think of him. All i know is and here what was shown in the courthouse. i know his music and that he's worked with mike but i don't know the person
 

michaelsson

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
4,543
Points
48
The jury needed evidence that the girl was a minor. It could have been some 20 year old dressed up in school uniform. men are kinky that way. There was no evidence to say that the girl in question was the one on the tape. The girl said it wasn't her. That is reasonable doubt. You cannot put someone away just because you have a feeling about them You need hard evidence. It wasn't there in this case. This should have never have gone to trial in the first place. It was never a winnable case without a victim.

Ur right..but this isnt the 1st time. child pornography was found @ his home and i believe there are other tapes. I cant remember exactly but he has been in trouble more than once 4 this. I just dont get how he hasnt been convicted on the other tapes and crap found @ his home. He needs help
 

Datsymay

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,474
Points
0
Location
South East London
Ur right..but this isnt the 1st time. child pornography was found @ his home and i believe there are other tapes. I cant remember exactly but he has been in trouble more than once 4 this. I just dont get how he hasnt been convicted on the other tapes and crap found @ his home. He needs help
Did you see those tapes yourself or did you just hear about them> Could it be that the reason why they weren't presented in court was because they were none to present. Could R Kelly be a victim of malicious lies too? Just thinking out loud,
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Ur right..but this isnt the 1st time. child pornography was found @ his home and i believe there are other tapes. I cant remember exactly but he has been in trouble more than once 4 this. I just dont get how he hasnt been convicted on the other tapes and crap found @ his home. He needs help

the only tapes i know of were the photos that were found in his florida home which werent allowed to be used.plus the previous settlements that comfirms that it was kelly on the tape but the jurrors already said they believe it was him so tbh thats no an issue unless it shows the girl clearly.as the jury said they didnt know about his previous issues. they can only judge on what is shown to them in a court of law and nothing else
 

BONGANI

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
950
Points
0
Location
SOUTH AFRICA
Did you see those tapes yourself or did you just hear about them> Could it be that the reason why they weren't presented in court was because they were none to present. Could R Kelly be a victim of malicious lies too? Just thinking out loud,
 

Bee.

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,118
Points
0
Did you see those tapes yourself or did you just hear about them> Could it be that the reason why they weren't presented in court was because they were none to present. Could R Kelly be a victim of malicious lies too? Just thinking out loud,
 
Top