New topic
Printable
|
midiscover said: shorttrini said: If I remember correctly, the jurors had to find Kelly guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Doing this was difficult, especially since both Kelly and his brother, bare a strong resemblance to one another. This placed doubt in their minds and therefor he was found, not guilty. This does not prove however, that it was no Kelly that committed the crime. It just proves that the jury could not tell if it was Kelly or his brother on that tape. Actually, he was found not guilty due to lack of evidence. The only people saying it was him was the girl's side of the family and Carey Kelly. They also said it was hard to determine whether it was him due to the quality of the tape and also the guy in the video has a mole on his back which R. doesn't have. He was basically accused for allegedly being the man in the tape. So they can't put him in jail for allegedly being the one. [Edited 1/8/10 17:57pm] This is finding him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, does not mean that he did not do it. It just means that because of the circumstances,(poor video quality,etc), the jury could not come to a guilty verdict. "Love is like peeing in your pants, everyone sees it but only you feel its warmth" |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
