West Coast Connection Forum

Elements => Outbound Connections => Topic started by: Mackin on May 09, 2008, 04:39:06 PM

Title: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Mackin on May 09, 2008, 04:39:06 PM
(http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/bands/k/kelly_r/12202007_court/281x211.jpg)

CHICAGO 

It seemed for a while as if R. Kelly's day in court might never come.

But after six years of repeated delays, jury selection is set to begin Friday in the Grammy-winning R&B singer's trial on child pornography charges, prompted by a videotape allegedly showing Kelly having sex with a girl as young as 13.

Prosecutors, though, will have a unique challenge: The alleged victim, now 23, says it wasn't her. And Kelly's attorneys -- including Ed Genson, who often represents the rich and famous -- haven't admitted it's Kelly in the video.

"How is there not reasonable doubt when the two people say it's not them?" said Michael Helfand, a Chicago attorney not involved in the case.

But Helfand conceded that it's unclear what supporting evidence the prosecution might present.

The 41-year-old Kelly, whose first name is Robert, faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted. But Kelly -- one of urban music's biggest stars, and a consistent hitmaker despite his legal woes -- is glad the wait is over, his spokesman said.

"Every waking moment, he's always had this hanging over his head," spokesman Allan Mayer said. "He's confident that when all the evidence comes out he'll be shown not to be guilty of any crime."

The centerpiece of the trial is likely to be the video footage, which Judge Vincent Gaughan ruled may be shown in open court.

Prosecutors claim the videotape was made sometime between Jan. 1, 1998 and Nov. 1 2000, and that the girl was born in September 1984.

Kelly was indicted on pornography charges June 5, 2002, after the tape surfaced and was sold illegally on street corners and the Internet. Chicago police began investigating after receiving the tape from the Chicago Sun-Times, which said it was sent to the paper anonymously.

Police and prosecutors said their investigation, including interviews with about 50 witnesses, determined Kelly and an underage girl were on the tape, and that FBI forensics experts had determined the tape was authentic.

Prosecutors may need more than a videotape to prove their case, said Helfand, the Chicago attorney.

"I'd be beyond surprised if he got convicted based on what's out there," said Helfand.

It is unclear whether prosecutors have asked -- or would be allowed -- to tell jurors about accusations that Kelly allegedly had sexual relations with other minors, because some of the trial proceedings have been kept secret by the judge. Media outlets, including The Associated Press, have filed a legal challenge seeking to get court records and hearing transcripts unsealed.

Kelly has settled three lawsuits accusing him of having sex with underage girls, filed in 1997, 2001 and 2002. In the third suit, the woman claimed that she began having sex with Kelly when she was 16, and that he forced her to have an abortion.

In 2003, Kelly was arrested in Florida on child pornography charges after investigators said they found photos of him having sex with a girl. Charges were dropped after a judge ruled detectives illegally seized the photographs from a digital camera in his home.

Documents show Kelly secretly married the singer Aaliyah in 1994, when she was 15. The marriage later was annulled by her parents; Aaliyah died in a plane crash in 2001.

The trial's six-year gap from indictment to trial is uncommon in child porn cases. But while suspects have a right to demand a swift trial, they're not obligated to ask for one, especially if they calculate that speed isn't in their best interests.

In Kelly's case, more than 30 pretrial motions contributed to delays. At one point, hearings were delayed when Judge Gaughan fell off a ladder at home and suffered multiple fractures. By the time he recovered, Kelly needed emergency surgery for a burst appendix.

Despite his legal troubles, Kelly -- who rose from poverty on Chicago's South Side to become a superstar singer, songwriter and producer -- still retains a huge following, and his popularity has arguably grown since being charged in 2002. The singer has released more than half a dozen albums, most of them million-sellers. He's also had a multitude of hits and gone on tours. His campy video series "Trapped in the Closet" have a cult following so strong that the Independent Film Channel premiered the latest chapters of the farcical musical, out on DVD, on its web site last year before showing them on the network. Kelly has a new song, "Hair Braider," out now, and is due to release a new album in July.

Although he won a Grammy in 1997 for the gospel-like song "I Believe I Can Fly," his biggest hits are sexually charged songs like "Bump N' Grind," "Ignition" and his current single.

The trial is expected to draw crowds of reporters and fans to the courthouse. But Gaughan is expected to keep a tight rein on the proceedings, from which cameras, cell phones and recorders are banned.

When a fan snapped a picture of Kelly with her cell-phone camera during a pretrial hearing last year, Gaughan sentenced her to five days in jail and ordered her phone destroyed.

"He's not one of those guys who's going to let this trial turn into a circus," said Helfand.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: NotoriousTDA on May 09, 2008, 04:52:57 PM
Like i said before, Usher > R Kelly
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: The-Leak (aka) kingwell (bka) JULES on May 09, 2008, 04:57:30 PM
Like i said before, Usher > R Kelly

Word.  I hope justice is served.  No amount of hits can redeem these dispicable acts..
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Mackin on May 09, 2008, 05:04:48 PM
^^true but if the alleged victim claims it's not her in the video, i don't see how they can convict without her testimony,you know???
I mean the Prosecution have nothing to go on, except the video..you know...
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: The-Leak (aka) kingwell (bka) JULES on May 09, 2008, 06:37:21 PM
^^true but if the alleged victim claims it's not her in the video, i don't see how they can convict without her testimony,you know???
I mean the Prosecution have nothing to go on, except the video..you know...

Yeah, which is why this is gonna be bullshit...  They tryed at least.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: J Bananas on May 09, 2008, 08:03:37 PM
kells!
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: R1ZE on May 09, 2008, 08:06:32 PM
R. Kelly gives Usher golden showers on the daily
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: J Bananas on May 09, 2008, 08:55:28 PM
R. Kelly gives Usher golden showers on the daily

co sign. stinky asparagus ones too
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: S P I C E on May 09, 2008, 08:57:31 PM
R Kelly is such slime.

Honestly though I dont know how the prosecution even has a chance to win this case,  no doubt Kelly will get off >:(
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: GangstaBoogy on May 09, 2008, 10:36:59 PM
Damn I remember the tapes leaked back when I was in my jr year of high school (03-04). That shiet is just now going to trial?

I hope he gets off. Them young hoes knew what they were doin.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: J Bananas on May 09, 2008, 10:52:06 PM
Them young hoes knew what they were doin.

Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: NotoriousTDA on May 10, 2008, 10:38:49 AM
R. Kelly gives Usher golden showers on the daily

Maybe to little boys under 18 that look similar to Usher.....
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: jeromechickenbone on May 10, 2008, 11:27:03 AM
Get em Kells

http://youtube.com/v/3_DTexNGn-U
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 10, 2008, 02:31:28 PM
Like i said before, Usher > R Kelly

You're out of your fuckin mind, buddy. R. Kelly is the greatest R&B singer/songwriter/composer/producer of our time. Usher is a good dancer, but thats the only area he has R Kelly beat in. that and he doesnt fuck little girls, but still...   lol
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: K.Dub on May 10, 2008, 04:00:44 PM
Them young hoes knew what they were doin.

Lol :laugh:
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 10, 2008, 06:06:26 PM
i dunno who's worse usher or r kelly. usher = scientologist, r kelly = kiddie fiddler. both pretty ODD.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Mackin on May 10, 2008, 06:08:10 PM
i dunno who's worse usher or r kelly. usher = scientologist,
Usher is a Scientologist??
Really when and for how long???
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 10, 2008, 07:07:20 PM
since he hooked up with his woman cause she's into it. just google usher scientology - although he is a fairly new recruit so won't be deep into any of it yet...
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Mackin on May 10, 2008, 07:14:07 PM
Right..Right....
Don't you have to be mega rich, or financially invest heavily to achieve a certain status in the Faith???

Im sure he is just following them cuz of his woman,
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 10, 2008, 07:31:38 PM
yup although celebrities get pampered and don't exactly have any problem money wise for the 'voluntary donations'. the higher levels is where you learn all the real crazy stuff (space opera - body thetans) :laugh:
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 10, 2008, 08:35:49 PM
i dunno who's worse usher or r kelly. usher = scientologist,
Usher is a Scientologist??
Really when and for how long???

a better question is why should that matter?
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: jeromechickenbone on May 10, 2008, 08:47:41 PM
Kellz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>usher
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 10, 2008, 08:51:48 PM
it matters cause scientology is not a religion its a crazy cult. and you gotta be an idiot (especially if your a celeb) to get sucked into it...

anyway back on the r kelly topic - he'll obviously beat this case but its a good job they didn't have high definition cameras so much back then...
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 10, 2008, 10:44:52 PM
it matters cause scientology is not a religion its a crazy cult. and you gotta be an idiot (especially if your a celeb) to get sucked into it...

anyway back on the r kelly topic - he'll obviously beat this case but its a good job they didn't have high definition cameras so much back then...

This may come as a shock to you, but EVERY religion could be considered a "crazy cult." What makes Scientology any less plausible than say Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism etc?
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 11, 2008, 10:04:54 AM
a hell of a lot actually! but you really gotta read up on it. the main thing being that its very creation was to extort money from people, its openly a pyramid scheme - taking over the world in a nazi like fashion, illegally harassing all serious critics, breaking up families and forcing abortions are policies in areas of it. sure you could argue other religions do a lot of shady things too to but as they aren't 'new religions' there isn't tons and tons of evidence to show thats all they are about - theres a lot more non-profit activty and actual members of other religions despite all the disputes they bring etc etc. if you read the non-scientologists story on the guy who made it up (l ron hubbard) then you'd realise he's a serious serious crackhead.

i mean i'm not hating on the general scientologists (although a lot are stupid/gullible to get into it and give up so much money in the first place) because they obviously do get something out of it at some level/at some stage - but the very idea behind it was to con people and the organisation than runs it is openly corrupt in all areas of operation. to argue otherwise you'd probably have to be a scientologist...

other religions all being a con/illuminati theories is another argument that takes a lot more probing to get at 'the truth' but scientology is so easily exposed as fradulent it aint funny...
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: NotoriousTDA on May 11, 2008, 10:10:59 AM
Kellz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>usher

Usher with your moma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kellz with your baby sister
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: smegma on May 11, 2008, 01:11:15 PM
Them young hoes knew what they were doin.






Kellz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>usher

Yes. R. Kelly has more musical talent in his right pinky toe than Usher does in his whole body.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: jeromechickenbone on May 11, 2008, 01:18:29 PM
Kellz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>usher

Usher with your moma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kellz with your baby sister

If you're gonna throw out a random diss, at least make it funny.  It needs to motivate me to diss back.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Mackin on May 11, 2008, 07:12:11 PM
i dunno who's worse usher or r kelly. usher = scientologist,
Usher is a Scientologist??
Really when and for how long???

a better question is why should that matter?
to some degree it should not, however since the aforementioned faith is picking up a lot of Followers, as it is losing them,one can't help but ask why?? or  What is allure of Scientology??
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 11, 2008, 07:38:14 PM
a hell of a lot actually! but you really gotta read up on it. the main thing being that its very creation was to extort money from people, its openly a pyramid scheme - taking over the world in a nazi like fashion, illegally harassing all serious critics, breaking up families and forcing abortions are policies in areas of it. sure you could argue other religions do a lot of shady things too to but as they aren't 'new religions' there isn't tons and tons of evidence to show thats all they are about - theres a lot more non-profit activty and actual members of other religions despite all the disputes they bring etc etc. if you read the non-scientologists story on the guy who made it up (l ron hubbard) then you'd realise he's a serious serious crackhead.

i mean i'm not hating on the general scientologists (although a lot are stupid/gullible to get into it and give up so much money in the first place) because they obviously do get something out of it at some level/at some stage - but the very idea behind it was to con people and the organisation than runs it is openly corrupt in all areas of operation. to argue otherwise you'd probably have to be a scientologist...

other religions all being a con/illuminati theories is another argument that takes a lot more probing to get at 'the truth' but scientology is so easily exposed as fradulent it aint funny...

I fail to see the huge difference between that and any other "mainstream" religion. The only notable difference (judging strictly from your own explanation) that I can see is that Scientology doesn't try to hide the fact that they are there to take people's money and control them in some fashion.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Mackin on May 11, 2008, 07:41:43 PM
a hell of a lot actually! but you really gotta read up on it. the main thing being that its very creation was to extort money from people, its openly a pyramid scheme - taking over the world in a nazi like fashion, illegally harassing all serious critics, breaking up families and forcing abortions are policies in areas of it. sure you could argue other religions do a lot of shady things too to but as they aren't 'new religions' there isn't tons and tons of evidence to show thats all they are about - theres a lot more non-profit activty and actual members of other religions despite all the disputes they bring etc etc. if you read the non-scientologists story on the guy who made it up (l ron hubbard) then you'd realise he's a serious serious crackhead.

i mean i'm not hating on the general scientologists (although a lot are stupid/gullible to get into it and give up so much money in the first place) because they obviously do get something out of it at some level/at some stage - but the very idea behind it was to con people and the organisation than runs it is openly corrupt in all areas of operation. to argue otherwise you'd probably have to be a scientologist...

other religions all being a con/illuminati theories is another argument that takes a lot more probing to get at 'the truth' but scientology is so easily exposed as fradulent it aint funny...

I fail to see the huge difference between that and any other "mainstream" religion. The only notable difference (judging strictly from your own explanation) that I can see is that Scientology doesn't try to hide the fact that they are there to take people's money and control them in some fashion.
In the same vein, does that not beg the question Why??..If it's so obvious why are peole follwoing it???
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 11, 2008, 09:11:16 PM
this argument could go on for a very long time. i'm just gonna shut up and finish by saying scientology is a LOT more dubious than any other 'religion' in terms of its practices, beliefs and focus on profit. its a cult in its purest form and will always lie in the face of criticism. i wouldn't mention it in the same breath as the other main religions of the world.

that is my opinion from what i've read and what i know to be true about it. if you think otherwise or want to put the other religions on the same level as scientology then fair enough, but i'd urge you to read everything out there on scientology first. its outrageous that it could even exist this long in the first place but its probably gonna be finished within the next few years...
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: jeromechickenbone on May 11, 2008, 09:37:38 PM
^^^^Not to continue hijacking the thread, but why do you think Scientology will be gone in a few years?
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 11, 2008, 09:50:13 PM
a hell of a lot actually! but you really gotta read up on it. the main thing being that its very creation was to extort money from people, its openly a pyramid scheme - taking over the world in a nazi like fashion, illegally harassing all serious critics, breaking up families and forcing abortions are policies in areas of it. sure you could argue other religions do a lot of shady things too to but as they aren't 'new religions' there isn't tons and tons of evidence to show thats all they are about - theres a lot more non-profit activty and actual members of other religions despite all the disputes they bring etc etc. if you read the non-scientologists story on the guy who made it up (l ron hubbard) then you'd realise he's a serious serious crackhead.

i mean i'm not hating on the general scientologists (although a lot are stupid/gullible to get into it and give up so much money in the first place) because they obviously do get something out of it at some level/at some stage - but the very idea behind it was to con people and the organisation than runs it is openly corrupt in all areas of operation. to argue otherwise you'd probably have to be a scientologist...

other religions all being a con/illuminati theories is another argument that takes a lot more probing to get at 'the truth' but scientology is so easily exposed as fradulent it aint funny...

I fail to see the huge difference between that and any other "mainstream" religion. The only notable difference (judging strictly from your own explanation) that I can see is that Scientology doesn't try to hide the fact that they are there to take people's money and control them in some fashion.
In the same vein, does that not beg the question Why??..If it's so obvious why are peole follwoing it???

maybe they appreciate the honesty? lol I couldnt tell you. you'd have to ask a scientologist. anything i have to say about why people follow ANY religion is pure speculation.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 11, 2008, 09:51:56 PM
this argument could go on for a very long time. i'm just gonna shut up and finish by saying scientology is a LOT more dubious than any other 'religion' in terms of its practices, beliefs and focus on profit. its a cult in its purest form and will always lie in the face of criticism. i wouldn't mention it in the same breath as the other main religions of the world.

that is my opinion from what i've read and what i know to be true about it. if you think otherwise or want to put the other religions on the same level as scientology then fair enough, but i'd urge you to read everything out there on scientology first. its outrageous that it could even exist this long in the first place but its probably gonna be finished within the next few years...

Translation: "Scientology really isn't much different or less plausible than any other religion so I'm going to exit the discussion gracefully while I still can."
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Matty on May 12, 2008, 06:37:36 AM
translation: whatever i say about scientology someone else is gonna say that other religions do the same/very similar things regardless
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Turf Hitta on May 12, 2008, 02:28:56 PM
LOL you haven't said anything about it that sets it apart from any other religion in any significant way. Every religion is a cult.
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: Eddie G. on May 12, 2008, 04:38:06 PM
New Kellz, club joint with the autotune again:

R Kelly - Bobble

http://www.zshare.net/audio/11917359443fb436/
Title: Re: R. Kelly on Trial for Child Porn Charges
Post by: smegma on May 12, 2008, 04:48:58 PM

^ Terrible.