Not guilty....?

[bliss_eternal]

R. Kelly found not guilty in child-porn case
Jurors deliberated for less than one day; singer faced 15 years in prison


June 13: A jury finds R. Kelly not guilty on all counts in a child pornography trial. MSNBC's Monica Novotny and legal analysis Susan Filan report.


updated 12:33 p.m. PT, Fri., June. 13, 2008
CHICAGO - R. Kelly was acquitted of all charges Friday after less than a day of deliberations in his child pornography trial, ending a six-year ordeal for the R&B superstar.

Kelly dabbed his face with a handkerchief and hugged each of his four attorneys after the verdict — not guilty on all 14 counts — was read. The Grammy award-winning singer had faced 15 years in prison if convicted.

Minutes later, surrounded by bodyguards, he left the courthouse without comment. Dozens of fans screamed and cheered as he climbed into a waiting SUV.


-------------------snip--------------------

Prosecutors had argued that a video tape mailed to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2002 showed Kelly engaged in graphic sex acts with a girl as young as 13 at the time. Both Kelly, 41, and the now 23-year-old alleged victim had denied they were the ones on the tape. Neither testified during the trial.

-------------------snip---------------------

Was Kelly on the tape?
The prosecution’s star witness was a woman who said she engaged in three-way sex with Kelly and the alleged victim. Defense attorneys argued the man on the tape didn’t have a large mole on his back; Kelly has such a mole.

The monthlong trial centered on whether Kelly was the man who appears on a sexually graphic, 27-minute videotape at the heart of the case, and whether a female who also appears on it was underage.

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.

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.

----------------snip-------------------------

Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Shauna Boliker said she believed the female on the tape was a victim, not a prostitute as the defense had contended.

“This shows the world how difficult this crime is to prosecute,” she said. “It also takes the soul of the victim, the heart of the victim.”

-----------snip----------------------



excerpted from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145335/?GT1=43001


:shrug::crazy::grr::puke:



Oooh, big surprise--nine dudes on the jury, and merely three women. :eyes:

[noamnety]

1. so all ofthe suspected victim's close friends and family

were called in to watch a video of her being raped?

charming. that wouldn't be traumatic at all.

[ThomCat]

2. It makes me even more pissed at our criminal justice system.

It's like a deliberate strategy. "If we make this as horrible and painful as absolutely possible for you and everyone who loves you then we can find that guy innocent and you'll all be too traumatized to give us shit about it."
:cry:

[bliss_eternal]

3. I have a friend...

...that now refuses to serve jury duty (and sometimes it's tough to get her to vote). :( :grr::cry:

She was assaulted (the guy had a gun) and put through such crap by the system. Eventually they told her there wasn't enough evidence or something like the evidence was "inconclusive." Another female friend who worked in the system told us the translation of that....

"The DA doesn't think it can win, and doesn't want to waste money on the case." This was long before some cases went to trial where the victim was raped "on tape" and the perpertrators were still acquitted. :grr::mad: The system is not pro-victim.

[noamnety]

4. The system is not pro-woman.

I don't think it's pro or anti-victim in general. Mainly it's just pro rich white guy - which makes sense considering who writes the laws, and overwhelmingly who interprets the laws.

(I know you were talking rape cases in particular, I'm just commenting on the larger pattern.)

[bliss_eternal]

5. Good point.

:hi:

I understood what you meant, and it is an important distinction.

[bliss_eternal]

6. an exception or two...

the system seems more "pro-rich guy" to me. Case in point, the Simpson trial. Simpson could afford the legal support usually only afforded wealthy white dudes--and walked.

Martha Stewart had the money, but as a woman was punished for the crime rich white guys practice (probably) everyday. Her example tends to make me feel the system is more pro-man than woman, but that's merely my opinion of course. Others may still disagree. ;)