Comments on: R. Kelly Is Found Not Guilty

By: Cassie

Cassie — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:27:10 +0000

Congratulations on having enough money to sway some witnesses, maybe…

By: Keimo

Keimo — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:44:48 +0000

PLEASE DO NOT CONGRATULATE THIS PEDOPHILE!!!! I saw that tape and it was DEFINITELY HIM! He set up that camera and put his face directly in font of it to make sure it focused in the right direction….I am so pissed!!!!

By: MamaB

MamaB — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:15:06 +0000

wow, that makes me totally sick!

By: Amy

Amy — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:44:17 +0000

He is so guilty! I guess his strategy worked…stall, stall and pay big money for a defense team.

By: cocovive

cocovive — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:03:31 +0000

The burden on the prosecution is to prove each element of each charge “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is the court system’s heaviest burden and therefore most difficult to prove to a jury. The fact that the initial list of prosecution witnesses dwindled each year the litigation wore on, largely due to the defense’s over 20 motions filed back to back to extend the case as long as possible while denying such legal maneuvers; and that the victim refused to testify, made this a tremendously difficult case to prosecute. Unfortunately, defendants with money do often triumph in a legal system with limited resources, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence.. Tactics to intimidate potential witnesses or to suggest that witnesses and victims may profit from future “music careers” if they do not testify adversely against the defendant, have great sway over people, especially those who with little financial means. His acquittal does not mean he did not do what he was charged with, his acquittal means that the 12 person jury did not believe him guilty of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. A claim of innocence may be maintained by any defendant no matter what the evidence is able to prove or disprove. Therefore just because someone is guilty, does not mean they will be punished by the criminal system.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:38:16 +0000

Trent — you changed your mind because R. Kelly said he was innocent? Do you really think he would admit to guilt? No, of course not — he would deny until death carried him off to a better (or worse..) place, or until his acquittal six years later…

By: Melissa

Melissa — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:08:15 +0000

Sounds like someone handed out some checks.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:04:55 +0000

He used a typical legal tactic – stall for six+ years.
Witnesses die, forget or private investigators digs up dirt to convince them it’s not worth testifying.
He better keep his biz in his pants and plan on taking his mom to any prom he decides to “crash”.

By: heaven

heaven — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:09:54 +0000

C’mon Trent……He is so guilty….
I saw the tape……There is a part when someone knocks on his door and calls his name and he turns his face to the camera and says”huh?”!!!! NO DOUBT!!

By: meme

meme — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:43:35 +0000

“oh yeah.. the aaliyah marriage. let’s not forget that in order for her to marry him, her parents probably had to sign papers agreeing to it. So we have to place blame on them as well for that if it was true. was there any proof they were really married?”

Doesn’t matter. Yes, it would definitely prove they were sh!tty parents if they did sign, but that alone proves his thing for really young girls. Period. He’s a skeevy perv who once again has proven that fame and money can do nearly anything.

By: Dana

Dana — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:20:53 +0000

oh yeah.. the aaliyah marriage. let’s not forget that in order for her to marry him, her parents probably had to sign papers agreeing to it. So we have to place blame on them as well for that if it was true. was there any proof they were really married?

By: Dana

Dana — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:18:44 +0000

the new update for ya trent: 5 of the 12 jurors know it’s Kelly on the tape and they don’t doubt it. however the girl from the tape refused to testify against him, and because of that they had to issue a not guilty verdict. he’s a talented singer BUT there is more than one account of him doing this and the prosecution had a much stronger defense than kelly’s team. it all boiled down to her NOT saying anything. I really do hope that he doesn’t get caught doing this again.. or at least he needs to learn to hide his camcorder.

By: Ricj

Ricj — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:23:10 +0000

Money/Celebrity, yet again proves to be tipping point for the scales of justice.

By: Matthew Rettenmund

Matthew Rettenmund — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:42:45 +0000

I don’t see how anyone would doubt his guilt…he is a long-time, well-known dabbler in underage chickadees. Aaliyah, anyone? And please…who has the time and cash to doctor VIDEOTAPE of him with a kid? This was a case of the jury giving him a free ride because he b(r?)ought experts in to say they couldn’t see a mole. It’s a joke. Just like Jacko, if you are rich enough, you can get away with anything. Age really AIN’T nothin’ but a number.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:41:41 +0000

This guy has quite a history with going after girls that are WAY too young. Sick perv. It sounds a lot like Michael Jackson’s case. Where there is a lot of smoke, there’s usually a fire.

By: Double H

Double H — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:00:58 +0000

Come on now! You know he’s guilty. Talented or not? He is guilty as sin. Just check out the tape. And let’s not forget his marriage to Aliyah. The guy is not in his right mind.

By: Chloe

Chloe — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:57:14 +0000

I never saw the tape, but I cannot believe he’s been acquitted… I pray he’ll stay the hell away from them young ass girls or at the very least get some ID…

By: B.

B. — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:07:57 +0000

Are you kidding me, it was soooo clearly him on the tape(s).

By: Priscilla

Priscilla — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:04:41 +0000

I CANT BELIEVE!
he is for sure guilty….
aghh!!!!!!