midnightmover said:

Bingo!

midnightmover said:

Exactly! You were on a roll over here!

midnightmover said:

Nah, your point wasn't missed. I made it not so subtly a few pages back. They just don't want to admit that we're right!

midnightmover said:

I don't see anyone making that argument here, so you've got the wrong fans I guess. I outlined just a couple of my arguments in my posts.

And this has nothing to with not liking one and liking the other. There's loads of Mj fans who are also R. Kelly fans that I know personally who disagree with the verdict in the R. Kelly trial. It's to do with blatant evidence.

marnifrances said:

I never said anyone's making that argument here. Why would they? This is an R. Kelly thread. But it's an argument made ad nauseum every time MJ's suspect behaviour is being debated. Now that you've made an implicit agreement with me that it's a dumb argument, I'll put you on the list of folks who no longer have the right to use that particular argument in future.

midnightmover said:

I've seen some fans say that.

Unlike them, I say Michael was not guilty because
the evidence wasn't there
the accusers couldn't keep their stories straight
and alot of it didn't make sense



Guess we gotta see what happens next for Mr. Hairbraider

bboy87 said:

Thank you. I have read extensively about both of those cases involving R. Kelly and MJ but unlike a lot of people who seem to talk out of their asses when it comes to the MJ case, I base my opinions about those cases based on actual FACTS. I've never claimed that because the courts found MJ not guilty means he's innocent and I haven't seen anyone else here making that claim either, so I don't know what Midnightmover is going on about. Once again, just another attempt by that poster to get off the subject and get into a 30 page argument with people.
[Edited 6/15/08 11:32am]

Cinnamon234 said:

Ya know what, Cinnamon234, let's stop mentioning Michael's situation because it would be a waste of time debating
[Edited 6/15/08 11:38am]

bboy87 said:

Usually the standard response to that argument is to point out that O.J. was found "not guilty" too, but from now on you can expect the R. Kelly example to be used just as frequently.

Cinnamon234 said:

Exactly.

Anyways, moving on. Interesting thought about Phil Spector.

BTW, OJ was found liable for the wrongful death of Brown & Goldman, a fact few people fail to recognize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...gful_death

So can R. Kelly be charged with anything at all? Like could the judge overturn it?

There's no chance of R. Kelly being charged with anything related to this case again, is there?

marnifrances said:

No he can never be charged with anything else concerning this case.

Theres a double jeopardy law that prevents that. And there will never be a civil trial like with O.J. cause there was no complaining victim.


DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm
[Edited 6/15/08 22:04pm]

LaCienega said:

Ok, thank you very much for that. Beautifully and simply explained.

what a shame. this guy (kelly)'s conscious isn't feeling guilty. thanking god repeatedly isn't make him feel guilty either?. Furthermore or, in other words, by him reacting to the verdict by thanking god makes him guilty. If he were to have reacted to the decision correctly, his reaction would have been-

I TOLD YALL I DIDN'T DO IT! I TOLD YALL ALL ALONG! Instead, he thanks god for getting off the hook.

yeah he said he didn't, but he reacted ass backwards to the verdict. this thread is pretty long so if this has been talked about already (it would take forever to go back and read everything) then I apologize.

what a perverted peeing pedofile

chewwsey said:

Dave Chappelle makes it all better.

Any criminal trial depending on testimony from the victim and any eyewitnesses that is delayed for almost 6 years is likely to produce a not guilty verdict. Memories are increasingly unreliable when the event falls further in the past, and the victim won't talk.

It's not what you know.

It's what you can prove.

LaCienega said:

Absolutely right. The fact that there is no complaining victim? No civil trial. Of course, this being America, and R. Kelly being rich can make anyone come out of the woodwork and try to start something. "I was horribly emotionally scarred by watching the footage! Coverage of the trial brought back horrible memories of when I was urinated on by my uncle!"

[3] is interesting in that application of different laws to an offense can result in further punishment. Label something as a "hate crime" or a crime against someone's "civil rights" can be a precursor to another trial. Change the definition of the offense, and you can retry for what amounts to the same action, especially in politically charged cases.

namepeace said:

There it is...
[Edited 6/16/08 13:46pm]

Alasseon said:

IIRC, the alleged participant settled with Mr. Kelly years ago. So that witness had no incentive to cooperate and she signed away her rights to a civil suit/



Well, if assault by a police officer is an assault under state law, it can also be a civil rights violation under federal law. I don't think that violates the double jeopardy clause.

A retrial usually only takes place if the first proceeding ended in a mistrial, or a court orders it due to constitutional and/or procedural violations by the state.

marnifrances said:

yeah, you are right!

namepeace said:

Well done... I haven't followed the Kelly case *at all*. Do we know why it took six years to bring to trial?

I just received the following text on my cell phone

TONIGHT IT'S GOING DOWN...R KELLY'S NOT GUILTY CELEBRATION 2NITE @ CHUCKE CHEESE
9PM UNTL 2, LADIES FREE B4 11 W/HIGH SCHOLL ID
NO PARENTS PLEASE

Alasseon said:

Lot's of delays from motions filed by the defense, The judge also was hurt, and then the procescutor had a baby

banks said:

Why didn't I think of that!

I wonder if R Kelly and Pee Wee "Artistic Nudes" Herman and Jeffrey Jones are texting eachother

Actually he's probably celebrating with Quincy, Strokes, and Joe Jackson.

Dance said:

Pete Townsend and Gary Glitter sent bottles of champagne from England.

Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry each touring the States in different cities send their regards.

Woody Allen offered to play a clarinet solo on Kelly's new CD.

The first video "Mole" features Little Lupe as Kelly's love interest.

R. Kelly Trial Aftermath: Jurors Believe Kelly Was on Sex Tape


6.16.08
Link


Following last Friday’s acquittal of R. Kelly, several jury members spoke to the media to discuss why they dismissed charges against the R&B singer.

Contrary to the defense’s efforts that Kelly was not in the video because of the missing mole, the jury unanimously agreed that Kelly did in fact star in the sex tape at the center of the trial. However, they didn’t believe that the girl in the video was that then-underage girl that prompted child pornography charges against Kelly.

The fact that the girl’s family was split over whether that was the girl or not, and that the girl herself denied it was her, helped fuel the jury’s decision to acquit.

The jurors also dismissed claims that they hurried to a verdict because they didn’t want to spend Father’s Day deliberating. However, the outcome of the trial would have been much different had the three alternate jurors stepped in, as was almost the case. The three alternates believed it was Kelly and the then-underage girl on the sex tape and would have endorsed a guilty verdict.

I think everyone who saw the video believed it was R. on the tape. The real question was it indeed the same girl who more than likely was paid off like some of his other young playmates. Unless he’s seeking treatment or has truly changed his ways starting from his core base, he’s the same guy he was in the video. Then I hear some woman say ‘we shouldn’t be so hard on him. He just got caught up in the fame.’ Yeah, okay. May he piss on your daughter too.

there is an interview that r kelly did with a guy named ed gordon (I guess BET) when he initially talked about this tape. boy was he playing himself in that interview. if anyone finds it let us know what you felt about it.

Unsealed Documents Reveal Trial Details

June 18
Link

Documents unsealed from the R. Kelly child pornography trial include claims from the prosecution's star witness that an employee of the R&B star threatened her. Lisa Van Allen says the employee told her last year she should've been killed for coming forward with information that could damage Kelly.

No one was charged with threatening Van Allen. Van Allen testified she had three-way sex several times with Kelly and the female who prosecutors say was the victim in the sex tape at the center of the trial.

Van Allen says in the pretrial statement she stole a separate video tape of one of those encounters from Kelly's duffel bag. Jurors acquitted Kelly last week of child pornography. The documents were unsealed Tuesday.