June 13, 200817 yr After less than a day of deliberations, the jury in the R. Kelly trial has found him not guilty of child pornography. Jurors informed Judge Vincent Gaughan they had a verdict around 1:30 p.m. He read it half an hour later. Kelly was charged with 14 counts of child pornography after he allegedly videotaped himself having sex with a girl as young as 13. He faced 4 to 15 years in prison had he been convicted and would have had to register as a sex offender in Illinois. The key issue in the case was whether the jury thought Kelly was the man on the tape. His attorneys argued Kelly was not. Edited June 13, 200817 yr by Controlled Chaos
June 13, 200817 yr Not sure how I feel about that decision, just glad it won't be on the news anymore. I never really cared and think it got way too much news coverage.
June 13, 200817 yr HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHA OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A JOKE!IT WAS RECORDED WHEN HE WAS PEEING ON HER!
June 13, 200817 yr What's the great thing about Junior High girls? I keep getting older, they stay the same age -R Kelly Yes a joke, just like this ruling.
June 13, 200817 yr damn, that was quick. With that many counts and that little time, there was probably very little discussion.
June 13, 200817 yr Two things: (1) as an Attorney, this just makes me laugh and cry at the same time. (2) as a guy that loves peeing on underage girls, it's good to know that I can get away with it, even with a video tape showing the whole thing.
June 13, 200817 yr Damn, and I thought only California jurors were incapable of convicting a celebrity of anything.
June 13, 200817 yr you know....in the jurys defense...it's not like there was a videotape or anything....oh wait....never mind!!!!!
June 13, 200817 yr QUOTE (juddling @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) you know....in the jurys defense...it's not like there was a videotape or anything....oh wait....never mind!!!!! You probably had a few members of the jury who were R Kelly fans that didnt want to wait until 2030 to get their next album.
June 13, 200817 yr QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) Damn, and I thought only California jurors were incapable of convicting a celebrity of anything. R. Kelly's a celebrity?
June 13, 200817 yr QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) You probably had a few members of the jury who were R Kelly fans that didnt want to wait until 2030 to get their next album. Dude....cell phones...
June 13, 200817 yr here's a good headline i found.... "R. Kelly found not guilty. Prosecution pissed"
June 13, 200817 yr QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) This reminds me of the The Boondocks episode. "You wanna help R. Kelly? Get some counseling for R. Kelly! Introduce him to some older women! Hide his camcorder! But don't pretend that the man is a hero!"
June 14, 200817 yr QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 04:09 PM) Did anybody really expect him to get convicted? Not me. This news came with little shock. Edited June 14, 200817 yr by robinventura23
June 15, 200817 yr I'd heard that the prosecution had done a really poor job on the case before the verdict came in, so I wasn't that surprised.
June 15, 200817 yr QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 15, 2008 -> 12:00 AM) I'd heard that the prosecution had done a really poor job on the case before the verdict came in, so I wasn't that surprised. The girl they claim is on the tape denied it was her on the tape and the only person they could get to say it was her was someone that was proven to have tried to extort money from Kelly.... "a poor job" is an understatement. Not to mention the tape of a tape of a tape.
June 16, 200817 yr QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) I don't really blame the jury in this case. Lol!Then who the hell do you blame?!
June 16, 200817 yr QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 16, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) Lol!Then who the hell do you blame?! prosecution. I really doubt celebrity had that much to do with it. I doubt the chicago prosecutors got that out-maneuvered on jury selection. I mean if people seriously believed he was guilty there would've been a mistrial. But these people are instructed to sit their and judge and say whether they absolutely, positively feel he's guilty, or not guilty...not INNOCENT, but not guilty. And with the girl supposedly in the video saying it isn't her, the mole angle, and then the extortionist prosecutor witness, I don't think I'd be able to say guilty.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.