Via TMZ:Even though jurors in the trial of R. Kelly absolutely believed it was him on the tape, they could not reach a guilty verdict because they said there was "not enough evidence to prosecute." Huh?!
Five of the twelve jurors met with reporters immediately after handing down the acquittal. They said they just couldn't reach a verdict even though they voted on the hour, every hour because the alleged victim hadn't testified and refused to cooperate. As recently as this morning, we're told, the vote was split nine to three for a not guilty verdict.
The jurors were also "absolutely disgusted" with the tape. Unlike the bootleg version you can buy on the street corner, the version they got to watch was "clear as day." Ew.
We're hearing R. Kelly will be partying it up tonight in Chicago.
How that works is beyond me.
7 comments:
I believe that if a person who is 13 and up can be fit to be tried as an adult, they are also fit to consent to sex. I am tired of people giving blanket decriptions of these young girls not being capable of handling themselves in sexual situation. All one have to do is go into a middle or high school. They will see this as a sexual boot camp Teen girls have had babies at 13 for generations and have not stopped having them even today. People need to open their eyes. When they do they won't see all these so called inocent girls that take money for sex.
are you serious? no teen girl or boy at the age of 13 will EVER be able to make a decition about wheter she/he want to be videotaped and peed on, because its just simply imposible,because we all make mistakes when we are young,sometimes teenagers will start having sex too prematurely and they will regret it, but this is absolutely not the same as a grown up man manipulating a young girl, basically a child, to engage sexual behaviour and humilliation and videotape it, this is just disgusting and the people condoning it are even worse.
Ok. Let me explain it so your feeble brain can wrap around it. Yes, the jurors had no doubt that R. Kelly was the man on the tape, but refused to render guilty verdict for lack of evidence. This is beyond you, You say?
What they were doubting, was the identity of the female in the sex tape. There is no crime if you cannot positively identify that there is a minor in the tape. Why did the jury have a problem with it? Hmmmm... well, she said it wasn't her, and she wouldn't testify. Kinda makes it hard for reasonable parties to put a man (yes, a no doubt guilty perverted pedophilic man) in prison when the victim would come forward. Sorry folks, you can have all the video evidence that you want. Without a victim, there is no crime.
why the feeble mind part? just seems kind of ridiculous...
that nigga won because he's got money. if this was not a hollywood/celebrity case, it'd be a different story altogether.
feeble mind. fuck you.
khal needs to STFU.
The USA has one of the highest ages of consent in the world, 14 is the age of consent in Germany, Italy and its 13 in Spain. Human beings are capable of performing, and want to have, sex before the 18.
If someone takes a pee on you do you A: Smile and ask for more or B: get the hell out the way.
Does R Kelly live in Germany, Italy or Spain? And does the age of consent in European countries mean its OK for R Kelly to piss on a teenager?
Didn't think so. Thanks for playing, though.
How you know its a child and not a petite woman? seriously i got friend that are 23 and they look physically like they're 12? go figure...THE BITCH IS A MIDGET
Post a Comment