R Kelly weirdness

[germdoc]

Normally, I wouldn't pay 2 seconds of attention to this stuff. But, my BIL (Mr. Tarm) is covering this story for the AP, so I have a vested interest in the case:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/...secution_N.htm

I won't summarize the story here, but the bizarre twists and turns are unbelievable. This guy is obviously SLEAZE-y, if very talented. Most of the witnesses in this case are chronic liars and thieves. The "victim" denies it is her on the tape and refuses to testify against RK. The whole trial boils down to whether a mole is visible in the disputed tape. Like OJ, I wouldn't be surprised if he walks.

http://www.slate.com/id/2192808/entry/2192809/

Anyway, I find it ironic and amusing that a serious journalist finally hits the big time with a celebrity trial case--only in America...

[DUD]

Jeff

You are probably right, Bill

[Ed62]

You'd think they could have him show other body parts to the jury.

Ed

[germdoc]

Well, he walked:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1440930~R_...s_the_key.html

(Author of above is my BIL.)

I'm not surprised at all. It was a weird case, but the "victim" denied it was her on the tape and refused to testify, and her family refused to testify against RK. Moreover the prosecution botched the trial.

FWIW I've read that RK is notorious for having young girls hang around him for the purpose of having sex with them, then paying them off if they raise a fuss. He sounds like a sleazeball, but I don't see how you can successfully prosecute such a case without the testimony of the victim.

[just started]

They have video, it didn't matter. They could have had video of OJ and a confession, it still wouldn't have mattered. The sheep in this country don't care what you do if you are a 'star' or a politician, look at all the politicos that get re-elected after they have been indited or even convicted.

[Uncle Cracker]

I don't think the jury was dazzled by R.Kelly's stardom in this case. I think it was simply a matter that the prosecution did not prove its case. It is a shame, however, that five years and many taxpayers' money was wasted on this case if the prosecution did not have enough compelling evidence to get a conviction. I think there's a DA someplace that needs to be looking for another job.

[Pappy]

Regardless of his lifestyle, 12 people found him not guilty of all 41 counts against him. I won't question or second them. They heard and saw the evidence, I didn't.

[Ed62]

Regardless of his lifestyle, 12 people found him not guilty of all 41 counts against him. I won't question or second them. They heard and saw the evidence, I didn't.

That's true. Although it wouldn't surprise me if he did it, I couldn't convict him without seeing/hearing the evidence myself. When we start doing that, the "innocent until proven guilty" has gone out with the dishwater.

Ed