PDA

View Full Version : R. Kelly Aquitted



g++
06-13-2008, 03:23 PM
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- It took six years to get to trial, but a jury has acquitted R&B singer R. Kelly of child pornography after less than a day of deliberations.

Judge Vincent Gaughan is scheduled to read the verdict later Friday afternoon.

The jury of nine men and three women includes the wife of a Baptist preacher from Kelly's Chicago-area hometown, as well as a compliance officer for a Chicago investment firm and a man in his 60s who emigrated from then-Communist Romania nearly 40 years ago.

As they left the courtroom to deliberate, jurors took the sex tape at the center of the trial with them, and a monitor was set up in the jury room in case they wanted to review it.

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 up to 15 years in prison. He would also have to register as a sex offender in Illinois.

The 41-year-old superstar, who has pleaded not guilty, was charged in 2002. His trial was repeatedly delayed, once because the judge seriously injured himself falling off a ladder and another time because Kelly had emergency surgery to remove his appendix.

Jurors deliberated for three hours Thursday after listening to closing arguments.

Kelly's attorney banged on the jury box with his fist, he yelled and he whispered, he laughed and he pleaded for more than in hour in his emotion-filled closing.

At one point, Sam Adam Jr. referred to a defense argument made repeatedly during the trial that a mole on the singer's back proved he simply can't be the man in the video.

After displaying a freeze frame of the man's back in the video -- with no apparent mole -- Adam walked over to the defense table and placed his hand on Kelly's shoulder.

"The truth be told, there is no mole ... that means one thing," Adam told jurors, then paused and lowered his voice. "It ain't him. And if it ain't him, you can't convict."

Prosecutors wrapped up their arguments the same way they began them a month ago: by playing the entire graphic sex tape in open court.

The 27-minute film played on a monitor just outside the jury box -- the lights switched off and the blinds pulled across courtroom windows -- as Assistant State's Attorney Robert Heilengoetter read through sections of the indictment.

Both Kelly and the alleged victim, now 23, deny being on the tape. Neither testified at trial. But as the video played Thursday, Heilengoetter told jurors the man on the tape is Kelly and that he controlled the encounter.

At one point in the video, entered into evidence as "People's Exhibit No. 1," the female dances and urinates on the floor -- the man out of view. Back in view, he has sex with her. In one scene near the end of the video, alluded to in one count of the indictment, the man urinates on the female. At another point, the man hands her money.

Kelly sat across the room from jurors at the defense table in a gray pinstripe suit, his hands folded in front of him. As the sex tape played, he appeared tense, keeping his eyes on the monitor, his mouth drawn tight and his brow furrowed.

"The one person who is responsible is sitting right here," Assistant State's Attorney Shauna Boliker said, pointing at Kelly. "What you know now is that this is not a whodunit, but a he-did-it."

Over seven days presenting their case, prosecutors called 22 witnesses, including several childhood friends of the alleged victim and four of her relatives who identified her as the female on the video.

In two days, the Grammy winner's lawyers called 12 witnesses. They included three relatives of the alleged victim who testified they did not recognize her as the female on the tape.

During the trial, Kelly endeavored to make a good impression on jurors, always standing straight and folding his hands in front of him whenever they entered the courtroom.

Jurors, in turn, made a good impression on Judge Vincent Gaughan, who repeatedly praised their attentiveness. All appeared to take careful notes, even when testimony became highly technical.

g++
06-13-2008, 03:24 PM
...Wow apparently a tape of you having sex with a minor just isnt good enough proof that you had sex with a minor.

Sean
06-13-2008, 03:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmBRBUZ7UWc

Skeeter
06-13-2008, 03:33 PM
If you can talk a chick into letting you piss on them, you can rule the world.

Methais
06-13-2008, 03:33 PM
Hell yeah I'm gonna start hitting up the middle schools for some hot jailbait. Just glue a raisin to my back and I'm untouchable.
http://masklinnscans.free.fr/4chan/Demotivators/cp_or_jailbait.jpg

g++
06-13-2008, 03:38 PM
Whats really crazy is all 12 of them aquitted you would think at least one would be like.....ummm that looks like him on the tape tho you guys sure?

Sean of the Thread
06-13-2008, 03:43 PM
Drip drip drip I want to piss on youuuuuu

Skeeter
06-13-2008, 03:52 PM
Girl it'd make my life complete if I could use your face as a toilet seat.

Ilvane
06-13-2008, 04:08 PM
I didn't follow this case, but could it be this that helped them to aquit?

"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."

g++
06-13-2008, 04:11 PM
Yah I mean the parade of people that said otherwise including the girls friends who testified seeing Kelly giving her 500 dollars at a time to go shopping make it somewhat obvious whats going on there.

Faent
06-13-2008, 04:18 PM
>>Wow apparently a tape of you having sex with a minor just isnt good enough proof that you had sex with a minor.

This is the wrong kind of reaction to an acquittal. If the jury acquitted on all counts, they almost certainly did so because a rabid prosecuting attorney tried to charge someone with a crime they had little or no evidence for thinking the person committed.

Barring a close age difference (and so a jury nullification), almost all juries would immediately convict on the basis of a fairly unnatural twenty-seven minute sex video if they were confident of the identity of the parties. Clearly, they were not confident that either Kelley or the alleged victim appeared in the tape.

g++
06-13-2008, 04:24 PM
I take it you have not seen said tape, because a guy I worked with at an all night super market put a bootleg copy of it on the big screen at the super market I used to work at when it came out, and its friggin R Kelly.

NocturnalRob
06-13-2008, 04:36 PM
but there's no mole!!!11!!!!1!!

CrystalTears
06-13-2008, 04:45 PM
I didn't follow this case, but could it be this that helped them to aquit?

"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."
Of course! Because no one ever denies it was them! Why weren't you the attorney for the case, this could have ended ages ago.

It also doesn't make sense for this if the victim is saying it's not her. Not sure where you got that quote.

Stanley Burrell
06-13-2008, 06:27 PM
Just to echo previous sentiment:

Girl.

Woman.

Your body is like a porta-potty.

Celephais
06-13-2008, 06:47 PM
It also doesn't make sense for this if the victim is saying it's not her. Not sure where you got that quote.
She got the quote from the article... and she's saying it's not her because of $$$ (That and she probably doesn't want to admit to being the girl R Kelly pissed on).

Sean of the Thread
06-13-2008, 08:33 PM
If the mole don't fit.. you must acquit.