Non-Urban Music R. Kelly ACQUITTED!

[FroDawgg]

^^^i just read on mtv that he was found guilty b/c the jurors had doubts that it was the girl in the tape. they believed it was R but weren't sure about the girl. still BS to me, though.

 

[Devious]

^^^i just read on mtv that he was found guilty b/c the jurors had doubts that it was the girl in the tape. they believed it was R but weren't sure about the girl. still BS to me, though.

yeah, it's amazing the things money can buy, like a family's insistence that it wasn't their daughter. i mean honestly, is there anyone here who doesn't think R. Kelly paid off the girl and her family to say it wasn't her? that's the main reason the jury acquitted him.

also, something else i'm wondering. regardless of whether it was the girl in question on the tape or not, any good pediatrician should be able to view the tape and determine the relative age of the girl. if the girl is underage, shouldn't he go to jail regardless?

 

[_carmi]

This is fucking ridiculous. Fucking R. Kelly. Someone should bomb his house. Let's do a revolution.

 

[roaches]

You'd bomb R Kelly before Scooter Libby? Tsk.

 

[S O F I]

if the girl is underage, shouldn't he go to jail regardless?

Well, that was exactly the point of the trial. From my understanding, the girl refused to charge R. Kelly with the crime, so therefore the state ended up charging him instead. Without the girl's testimony, the jury couldn't convict him without a reasonable doubt. If the girl is denying it, there's a reasonable doubt then. That's how I see it.

 

[The.Menace]

I agree with sofi. Sorry Devious but that is stupid. You don't sent people 2 jail based on someone estimating anything.... it's called a trial and you have to proof someone guilty, that's how it goes and how it should be and since they couldn't do it, he's free for good.

 

[Devious]

I agree with sofi. Sorry Devious but that is stupid. You don't sent people 2 jail based on someone estimating anything.... it's called a trial and you have to proof someone guilty, that's how it goes and how it should be and since they couldn't do it, he's free for good.

but see, that is incorrect. how do you think pedophiles on the internet get caught and end up going to jail? say for example, i take my computer in to be repaired. the tech finds pictures of what looks to be an underage girl. i don't mean a little 4 year old or something where it would be obvious what the age is, i mean a teenage girl. if the tech reported it (which is the law here, if they find anything illegal on your computer in the process of regular tech work they must report it), the cops would have to prove the girl is underage. how do you do that when it's a random picture i downloaded from the internet? it would be impossible to track down the girl in the picture, so what they would do is get a pediatrician, someone who knows and understands the human growth cycle, to determine the age of the girl. if he/she determines the girl is underage, i go to jail.

in R. Kelly's case, he didn't have pictures, he fucked an underage girl. if that is a federal offense, which it is, and if they determine that it is Kelly on the tape, and it is in fact an underage girl, then there shouldn't even be a question, he should go to jail. but it's a moot point, i never believed fora second he'd be convicted anyway, because that's not how things work for celebrities in America.

 

[Farzin]

Pedophiles on the internet leave a trail that can be followed and later be used as irrefutable evidence. With IP tracing you can say without a doubt that it comes from a certain computer. IN a video you can't always say with a certainty that the person shown on the video is what others claim it to be.

There are safeguards in place to prevent people just aimlessly accusing others. We all know Kelly did it but if the girl doesnt come forward they have no other evidence. If they would convict him based on a video where the age is uncertain then it would open the door to a lot of other cases that are based on uncertain evidence.

 

[Devious]

Pedophiles on the internet leave a trail that can be followed and later be used as irrefutable evidence. With IP tracing you can say without a doubt that it comes from a certain computer. IN a video you can't always say with a certainty that the person shown on the video is what others claim it to be.

There are safeguards in place to prevent people just aimlessly accusing others. We all know Kelly did it but if the girl doesnt come forward they have no other evidence. If they would convict him based on a video where the age is uncertain then it would open the door to a lot of other cases that are based on uncertain evidence.

i hear what you're saying, but i think you missed the point of my example. there is no question i am in possession of the picture, and they can trace where i got the picture from, but it would still be nearly impossible to find the girl in the picture with the way files get passed around the internet. which is why in cases like this they use pediatricians to determine the age of the girl, the same way that a voiceprint analysis expert is used in a trial to determine if a voice on a tape is that of the person in question, or a handwriting expert is used to determine if a signature is that of the person or a forgery. not everything in a case comes down to hard facts and indisputable proof, which is why experts are used to make determinations like this. then it's up to the judge or jury to decide.

and sofi, i think you missed my point as well. yes, with the girl in question and members of her family testifying that it isn't her on the tape, it would plant reasonable doubt in the jury's mind that it was THIS GIRL on the tape. but if it is determined that it is R. Kelly on the tape, and it is determined that the girl on the tape is underage regardless of who she is, then there should have been a conviction. after all, the law Kelly was accused of breaking was having sex with an underage girl, not having sex with this particular underage girl.

 

[Preach]

I'm not into the whole discussion, I just want to say great for him. I also see comparisons to pedophiles here and I just want to say that a 15 year old girl can look more than woman. With jewelry, make-up and skimpy clothes on it's easy to be fooled. If she let him piss on her she was obviously a freak, so I don't see the problem. It's not like he took her innocence lol. I don't necessarily agree with what he did, but I also don't necessarily agree with sending him to prison over it. Congrats R Kelly!!

 

[Farzin]

i hear what you're saying, but i think you missed the point of my example. there is no question i am in possession of the picture, and they can trace where i got the picture from, but it would still be nearly impossible to find the girl in the picture with the way files get passed around the internet. which is why in cases like this they use pediatricians to determine the age of the girl, the same way that a voiceprint analysis expert is used in a trial to determine if a voice on a tape is that of the person in question, or a handwriting expert is used to determine if a signature is that of the person or a forgery. not everything in a case comes down to hard facts and indisputable proof, which is why experts are used to make determinations like this. then it's up to the judge or jury to decide.

and sofi, i think you missed my point as well. yes, with the girl in question and members of her family testifying that it isn't her on the tape, it would plant reasonable doubt in the jury's mind that it was THIS GIRL on the tape. but if it is determined that it is R. Kelly on the tape, and it is determined that the girl on the tape is underage regardless of who she is, then there should have been a conviction. after all, the law Kelly was accused of breaking was having sex with an underage girl, not having sex with this particular underage girl.

Is an expert really able to say without a reasonable doubt that someone is underage or not?

Even if an expert could say that the girl in the video i the girl that the prosecution says it is, would they be able to pinpoint her exact age through that video?

I am seriously asking this because i am not aware of any way to determine this in an accurate manner.

 

[Farzin]

I'm not into the whole discussion, I just want to say great for him. I also see comparisons to pedophiles here and I just want to say that a 15 year old girl can look more than woman. With jewelry, make-up and skimpy clothes on it's easy to be fooled. If she let him piss on her she was obviously a freak, so I don't see the problem. It's not like he took her innocence lol. I don't necessarily agree with what he did, but I also don't necessarily agree with sending him to prison over it. Congrats R Kelly!!

I see your point but the problem here is that if she was underage then that would mean her brain is under developed. This can result in kids crying and fainting at the sight of their favourite star. If that is possible imagine how much someone of kelly's stature could take advantage of a situation. Kids are easily manipulated and that is exactly why we have laws to protect them until they grow up old enough to be able to make decisions on their own. If they still decide to be pissed that's fine by me.

 

[Preach]

I wasn't being entirely serious with my post, but I basically don't see it as a big deal that he got off the hook. I can't justify it with any rational argument, but I do hate gold diggers, so there's probably some overlapping confused anger there.

 

[Devious]

Is an expert really able to say without a reasonable doubt that someone is underage or not?

Even if an expert could say that the girl in the video i the girl that the prosecution says it is, would they be able to pinpoint her exact age through that video?

I am seriously asking this because i am not aware of any way to determine this in an accurate manner.

well i don't know if the do this in the states but it is used here, that's why i thought of it in the first place. yes, a good pediatrician who understands the human growth process can look at a picture and make a close estimate. it's the same as any other expert testimony, they make their claim, the defense has a chance to refute the expert's claims, then it is up to the jury to decide. and as i said before the issue shouldn't be whether or not it was this girl in particular on the tape, especially since she didn't press the charges against him, the state did. if she was the one who pressed the charges, then it would matter if it was her or not. but the issue should have been whether or not the girl in the tape is underage and if she is, and they determine that it was Kelly on the tape, he should have been convicted. but since the focus was on the girl and whether or not it was her on the tape, i think the jury got confused and thought well if it's not her i guess we can't convict. they made a mistake but it wasn't their fault, the prosecution just chose the wrong method to prosecute this case imo.

it reminds me of the Robert Blake trial. i don't believe he killed Blakely or whatever her name was, i believe he had her killed. but the prosecution charged him with the murder and he was acquitted. if they had charged him with conspiracy to commit, i think things might have gone a bit differently for old Baretta, especially since there were a bunch of people willing to testify that he approached them to have her killed. the jury acquitted him cuz the prosecution made a mistake.