*sighs*

I'm fucking pissed!

Yeah! I really don't know how this one came down like this. Looked like him to me!

On another note, hope you come back thru and check my Share the Love post - left something there for you.

SjP

You know, SjP...I read somewhere else that the jurors knew that this fool was guilty, but the prosecution failed to prove their case...

I was convinced from the start that if they were going in with the evidence that they had (code=none), that he was going to walk...the holes in their case were apparent to me, and I got all the information second hand...

I am pissed, but surprised? No...and that is what is sad...

I heard the verdict and just nodded in disbelief!

It's pretty hard to convict someone when you have both the accused and the victim yelling, "that's not me!"

Sjp..I too understand about the juror life, sadly what you say is so true. That one phrase, "beyond" a shadow of a doubt is what stops a lot of justice..

well at least in "this era." I hate to point out the fact if it was a little "white" girl (back in the day), Justice would not even have and ear. Black man, white girl (minor), the black man is placed UNDER the jail.

Although many admire his musical skills, R. Kelly has and will always be guilty to many of us. It is like O.J., no matter what the ruling is, the court of opinion ways heavy. Thanks for the award, I will go to that post and pick it up.
Onelove..IRIE

Ms Marva - It's hard for me to believe that the prosecution went into this after 6 years without an air-tight case. I really didn't follow it, so hadn't heard much of what they had or didn't have. Guess I just assumed that he was going to be found guilty.
____________________

Ms LadyDeborah - same here! I was/am truly shocked!
____________________

Sheila - Nancy Grace has been steaming at the fact that the defense didn't call the victim or Kelly. But, they didn't have to because they had grand jury testimony from both saying that they weren't on the tape. Didn't matter that others said it was - both the victim and the accused said under sworn testimony that it wasn't. So, you're right - can't convict...
_____________________
Irigal - As you say, Unless you've served on a jury, people really have no idea just how "blind" that process really is. I've been hearing that the jury was "star struck" and that's the reason for their verdict. I doubt that very seriously. Might have started out that way...but don't think that's the way it ended up.

I really believe that most jurors really take those words 'innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt' seriously. Based on what I've been hearing, the Prosecution didn't present the evidence to prove that he was guilty. And, unfortunately Kelly is a free man.

I agree that the verdict may have been different if the victim had been white. But, if the victim had been white, I believe that the evidence presented against Kelly would have been much different. And therein, lies the difference for me.

I suspect that had the victim been white, the jury would have heard about ALL of his past history with young girls and the law suits he's settled as a result. The evidence would have been much different.
_________________

All: From what I heard last night, it appears that the jury's decision was based on whether or not it was the alleged victim in the video rather than if it was Kelly. That's a very interesting twist to all this - and one I don't really understand. Guess we'll just have to wait for the analysis to begin to understand why and how...

Much obliged for stopping by...
SjP