1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

R. Kelly Acquitted on all child porn charges

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Write-brained, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_en_mu/r_kelly_trial

    CHICAGO - 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. Defense attorneys argued the man on the tape didn't have a large mole on his back, as Kelly does.
     
  2. If the mole exists, you must acquit.
     
  3. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    Someone is getting peed on tonight!
     
  4. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    That's the greatest defense I've ever heard of. And pretty clever, too.
     
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    What a pea brained jury!
     
  6. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I guess it's tough to convict when the alleged victim is six years older than when it was taped and she says it wasn't her. Hard for a jury to recognize someone who has probably changed a lot in that time.

    I don't know about the whole mole thing, but if the victim is saying it didn't happen and her family is saying the girl in the video isn't the victim, I guess that qualifies as reasonable doubt.

    Either that, or they got this guy on the jury:


    http://superducky.com/view.cfm/media/26837
     
  7. Jar of Flies

    Jar of Flies Member

    Drip, drip, drip.

    (To be safe, NSFW)

     
  8. Norman Stansfield

    Norman Stansfield Active Member

    ...and somewhere, poin weeps.
     
  9. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    His lawyers must have been geniuses. Weren't charges filed six or seven years ago?

    I'm sure he's guilty as hell, but no surprises here.
     
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Haters want to hate
     
  11. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Lovers want to love
     
  12. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I just want none of the above...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page