PDA

View Full Version : Jury Acquits R. Kelly In Child Sex Trial


Z
06-13-2008, 17:54
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/r.kelly.verdict.2.746826.html


Jury Acquits R. Kelly In Child Sex Trial

As Tears Rolled Down His Face, Singer Kept Repeating 'Thank You, Jesus' As Verdict Was Read

CHICAGO (CBS) ― R. Kelly has been acquitted of child pornography charges that he appeared on a videotape having sex with a girl as young as 13.

The jury read the verdict shortly after 2 p.m. They cleared the R&B superstar of all 14 counts.

Kelly's Attorney Ed Genson said the defense team is "ecstatic." Kelly held his attorneys hands as the 14 not-guilty verdicts were read and tears rolled down his face.

Defense attorney Sam Adam Junior says all he heard from Kelly during that time was "Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus."

Minutes later, surrounded by bodyguards, Kelly left the courthouse without comment, with dozens of fans screaming and cheering as he climbed into a waiting SUV.

Assistant Cook County State's Attorney Shauna Boliker would not say she was disappointed with the decision, saying a successful prosecution requires "the heart of the victim."

The verdict brought to an end a criminal case that has been pending for six years. Kelly had argued from the beginning that he was not the man on the video, and the alleged victim said she was not the one who appeared either.

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. The man then has sex with and urinates on her.

Prosecutors say the videotape was made between Jan. 1, 1998, and Nov., 1, 2000.

Chicago Sun-Times rock critic Jim DeRogatis received the video anonymously in 2002 and turned it over to police. The tape resulted in the charges against the singer, now 41, whose full name is Robert Sylvester Kelly, but it took six years for the case to go to trial.

Kelly was defended by high-profile local attorneys, including Edward Genson, who is often sought by the rich and famous for his persuasive powers with jurors, and the father-son team of Sam Adam Sr. and Jr.

Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Shauna Boliker took the lead for the prosecution. She has prosecuted several other high-profile cases, including against Rev. Daniel McCormack, a Catholic priest who pleaded guilty last year to abusing five boys.

The trial was a string of dramatic moments.

A star prosecution witness, Lisa Van Allen, testified that she'd had a sexual liaison with Kelly and the alleged victim. The defense called a mystery defense witness who was supposed to impeach her testimony and argue that she had tried to extort Kelly, but he never testified.

After that, DeRogatis was called to testify, prompting a legal battle to prevent it. Judge Vincent Gaughan threatened to arrest DeRogatis after he did not appear in court. DeRogatis received the sex tape anonymously in 2002, and turned it over to police.

Finally, DeRogatis cited the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and declined to testify. Attorneys had said he might be accused of child pornography for possessing and viewing the tape.

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. Some said she had referred to Kelly as her "godfather."

In just two days, Kelly'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 deliberations, the jury spent a night in a hotel after not reaching a verdict within the first afternoon. Early indications suggested disagreement about Van Allen's testimony about her alleged tryst with Kelly and the alleged victim.

The jury asked Judge Vincent Gaughan for a transcript of her testimony. Gaughan initially denied the request, but later told attorneys to have the transcript ready on Friday.

Around 1:30 p.m. Friday, the jury announced it had reached a verdict.

Kelly won a Grammy in 1997 for "I Believe I Can Fly," and is known for such raunchy songs as "Bump N' Grind" and "Ignition," and for "Trapped in the Closet," a multipart saga about the sexual secrets of a lively and ever-expanding cast of characters.

All I can say is... "dammit".

deathofcheese
06-13-2008, 18:48
For celebration, Kelley's going out with some little boys before heading back to his house for a little private fun time...

Wait, didn't The Boondocks call this trial ending this way?

Charlie
06-13-2008, 21:06
Money and status acquitted him. He's guilty as it gets to me. He and Michael Jackson both should be sharing a cell with eachother. But unfortunately, it doesn't happen in Hollywood. A little slap on the fucking wrist, maybe. Which then proceeds into slapping a kids ass in celebration.. >.>

Frozen
06-13-2008, 21:24
Money and status acquitted him. He's guilty as it gets to me. He and Michael Jackson both should be sharing a cell with eachother. But unfortunately, it doesn't happen in Hollywood. A little slap on the fucking wrist, maybe. Which then proceeds into slapping a kids ass in celebration.. >.>

I don't understand the treatment hollywood stars get it's very very wrong.

On the other hand they get the paps.

Gio Takahashi
06-13-2008, 22:10
It's lame that they the stars get away so easily, but keep in mind that the medias get all over these sort of things, and of course would make fun of them to hell's end.

Z
06-13-2008, 22:27
Wait, didn't The Boondocks call this trial ending this way?

Haha, yah, I think you're right. That was a funny episode, too. I can't believe they got Adam West to be the defense attorney, lmao.

R. Kelly was acquitted, O.J. was acquitted, Michael Jackson was acquitted, and I think Kobe Bryant was acquitted. Message to the World: If you got enough money, you can do whatever the hell you want, to whoever the hell you want. Way to go, Justice System! :frust:

deathofcheese
06-13-2008, 23:13
Considering how often he makes fun of himself on Family Guy, I imagine he was happy to get more of the same work. He's such a great voice-over-actor-strange-niche-filler.

Killer_Man_
06-13-2008, 23:26
Money and status acquitted him. He's guilty as it gets to me. He and Michael Jackson both should be sharing a cell with eachother. But unfortunately, it doesn't happen in Hollywood. A little slap on the fucking wrist, maybe. Which then proceeds into slapping a kids ass in celebration.. >.>

Sadly from what I read, there was no -real proof- of what MJ day. Now R.Kelly, well.... If there was a tape and proof of it, especially the way Chappelle(Sp?) show did it. That was a funny skit...

*coughs* Anyway, the problem with today is. Unless you have tape proof of it, especially in say MJ or anyone. How do you know they aren't sueing to get money?

Though yes, I do agree that both of them are horrible people for what they do, but sadly, you need proof.

Now this R.Kelly case just boggles my mind. If they have a tape of it, they should get police people(Like the CSI people) to do a over haul on it and prove that it was her.

Seegtease
06-14-2008, 04:25
I don't know how money and fame will make you win a trial by jury. The jury still has to make a unanimous decision. Unless there was bribery and every single person in the jury had no morals, I don't know how fame and money could be to blame. Just because a lot of celebrities get acquitted doesn't mean anything. That just means a lot of celebrities are getting put on trial, which could also be because of their fame. Some of them would never get the attention if they weren't celebrities.

I have no opinions about this case, since I haven't been following it or anything, and know nothing about it. But sometimes, I think a lot of people have the mentality, when the crime is horrible (child sex, for example) that it turns the case into "suspect is guilty until proven innocent" which is a pretty messed up view. Some people just want the first suspect to be punished, so SOMEBODY is punished.

I'm not referring to this case, but the treatment of suspects in general.

Z
06-14-2008, 05:32
According to the story, R. Kelly and the victim (his apparent Goddaughter) denied it was either one of them in the video. Kind of a wierd coincidence, though, given that they have a pre-existing relationship and look strikingly similar to the people on the tape. What are the odds?

Then Lisa Van Allen "testified that she'd had a sexual liaison with Kelly and the alleged victim. The defense called a mystery defense witness who was supposed to impeach her testimony and argue that she had tried to extort Kelly, but he never testified."

And dispite her testimony going unchallenged, the Jury somehow came up with their guilty verdict based on her unchallenged testimony. I can't say for a fact that he did it. All I can react to is what I've read and what I've read smells of major bullshit.

Seegtease
06-14-2008, 12:10
Sure, he might have still done it, but the jury would still have to have a reason for unanimously choosing to acquit. I mean they were there for every second of the case. I just figure it's very likely that they made smart informed decisions, because they're more informed than anybody else, really. That's my thing about challenging trial by jury court outcomes. You're challenging 100% decision. Seems a little daring.

Z
06-14-2008, 17:05
I'm challenging a decision based on unchallenged testimony and a coincidence that defies most odds. It's the jury that's daring to look at it and say "Still, though...not-guilty." Not to mention this case took 6 years to wrap up. I'm not saying he did it for sure, either, but the case was shady and a celebrity can contaminate the jury pool with ease. This case took 6 years to wrap. Think R. Kelly took 6 years off, out of the public eye? Of course not. To deny room for judicial error/tampering is ludicrous. It's widely accepted that the Justice System is flawed for a reason.

These aren't 12 men and women with law degrees deliberating in there. It's people too stupid to get out of Jury duty.

Seegtease
06-14-2008, 20:52
Does the video really look that much like him, or was that the first connection that was made? Many people can recognize celebrities so the first thing the mind will do is see who somebody looks like that they have seen plenty of times before. For all we know, there could be a random guy nobody knows that looks like him. I haven't seen the video, but is it really clear?