|
Mamajama (m)
|
A Chicago jury has acquitted R Kelly on all counts at his child pornography trial. The verdict came six years after the R&B superstar was first charged with videotaping himself having sex with a young girl. Prosecutors had said she was as young as 13 at the time. Kelly had faced a maximum 15 years in prison. Both Kelly and the now 23-year-old alleged victim had denied they were the ones appearing on the tape, which was played for the jury at the beginning and end of the trial. The prosecution's star witness was a woman who said she engaged in three-way sex with Kelly and the girl from the video. Defence attorneys argued the man on the tape didn't have a large mole on his back, as Kelly does. About this articleClose This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday June 13 2008. It was last updated at 20:26 on June 13 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/13/usa.musicnews |
|
|
|
|
|
mactao (m)
|
I think he's guilty. He just had good lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tosinadeda (m)
|
happy for him even though i know he did it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smile4kenn (m)
|
Happy for Him !!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
naija_diva (f)
|
I think he's guilty. He just had good lawyers.
uh huh! |
|
|
|
|
|
debosky (m)
|
I don't frankly see why the case even went to court - the cops were just trying to land a 'big fish' regardless of whether he was guilty or not.
The girl said she wasn't the one in the video, R Kelly says he wasn't the one in the videoso why take such a case to court? What is the basis of determining guilt when the principal actors deny being involved. The mole on the back of Kells even solidified the defense's case - no mole on the man in the video!
Obviously the case was pretty simple to the jurors, thats why they decided in less than a day of deliberation. Now Kells can release another 'Not Guilty' track on his next album and smile to the bank. Bravo to the law enforcement for wasting taxpayers' money instead of chasing the real pedophiles out therenow Kells will get richer for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
spoilt (f)
|
@debosky did you see the video?  Just curious, did R kelly take off his shirt in court to show the alleged mole? |
|
|
|
|
|
FLOWSHOW
|
and what if he did it, no be somebody go still tear the small girl kini ni?
|
|
|
|
|
|
youmour (m)
|
i never still watch the vid make una post up na
|
|
|
|
|
|
unix4real1 (m)
|
@debosky Nice one jare. @flowshow |
|
|
|
|
|
emmeno (m)
|
First of all, i'm happy for him men, because i can't afford not hearing from that guy in the next 2 years. And come to think of it, i've seen that video, and that a$$ no be 13years old a$$. if that girl is 13 in that video, then i think ma grandma is a virgin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
Ass size is not how you determine a person's age, silly. I'm pretty sure she has a birth certificate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
emmeno (m)
|
Yea right, birth certificate. As if you'll ask a girl about her Birth Certificate before combing, silly, lol. Well i'm happy for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
spoilt (f)
|
and what if he did it, no be somebody go still tear the small girl kini ni?
hopefully the person who 'tears your daughter's kini' holds the same view! hopefully. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uzzyan (f)
|
the guy needs space abeg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
debosky (m)
|
@ spoilt
I saw a few stills from the video years ago, the whole pissing incident put me off trying to watch it, but from the court proceedings, he really did have a mole on his back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
