Pedophilia means prepubescent children. 15-year olds are not prepubescent. The correct term is hebephilia or ephebophilia. I tend to be anal when it comes to the definition of words.

“6. Why would the alleged victim take the stand for anyone besides the defense in this case, especially since she claims it is not her.”

Victims not wanting to be on the stand is quite common and I can see why the prosecution wouldn’t call her to testify. But the fact that the defense didn’t strikes me as very odd. The only reason not to is if you know it’s her and your client in the video and you ask her to deny it because either she tells the truth and you are screwed or she lies and you can be disbarred.

“Unfortunately you are wrong.”

Are you sure about that? It was my understanding it was in his possession. That does change matters. Or at the very least, similar items were found.

“Remember, it doesn’t matter if R. Kelly is in the video or not, he would still be guilt of possessing child pornography.”

Unfortunately you are wrong. The tape was mailed anonymously to a newspaper, the item was not found in his living quarters, and allegedly the backdrop to the sex scene was not identifiable in any of R. Kelly’s houses.

1. This case should not have taken 6 years to go to trial.
2. Four family members said it was her, and three said it was not.
3. Of those three, two were her parents.
4. R. Kelly is a pedophile as evidenced by his marriage to Aaliyah when she was 15.
5. The Prosecution could not come up with a compelling argument regarding the man on the tape’s mole on the back, and the fact that R. Kelly did not have one.
6. Why would the alleged victim take the stand for anyone besides the defense in this case, especially since she claims it is not her.
7. THe prosecution had to establish not only that Kelly was involved, but the victim was involved since they both denied it.
8. Sometimes justice is blind, just like the statue.
9. I think he did it too given his track record…unfortunately and fortunately it takes more than that in America.

Two points:

1.) Don’t act snarky because I was able to counter your argument.

2.) And a positive identification by several family members should be enough. Many cases won’t have more evidence than that, because in many cases the victim can’t testify. If this isn’t enough evidence to convict R. Kelly, then practically no murderer could ever been convicted.

The defendant has the right to question the accuser in a court of law. That’s first year stuff.

“It’s the job of the prosecution to establish guilt, and they failed.”

The girl in the video was positively identified by several family members, who should be experts in this field. If that doesn’t represent establishing guilt, then no one should be found guilty, ever.

Remember, it doesn’t matter if R. Kelly is in the video or not, he would still be guilt of possessing child pornography.

She refuses to testify but several relatives look at the tape and say, ‘Yeah, that’s her.’ If it really wasn’t her, why didn’t the defense call her to the witness stand?

Almost no evidence? He video taped the act. And while the victim refused to testify, the victim’s family did and they were able to make a positive I.D.

How can you say there was almost no evidence.

If he wasn’t famous, he would have been sent to jail for a long, long time.

Most life sentences are well deserved. I know firsthand what real (read: not Paris Hilton, but actual murderous scumbag losers) wastes of skin and oxygen are, and sometimes I wonder if they really have to be treated for medical ailments. But they have rights, those rights must be met with actions, and we free people have the right to question whether life sentences are always worth it. I can’t be entirely objective or subjective on the subject, and I’m unsure how I really feel about it, but I know one thing: I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions.

Could I maybe reference the “political” headline on Yahoo

McCain Seen As Best Choice for Economy

which, as I said, is guaranteed to give the reader whiplash. Seems Wall Street is somewhat schizoid on the race.

I did not single out Kim Kardashian. There was a link to a photograph of her posted to this site. I clicked on the link because I did not know who she was or why a photograph of her was linked. I looked at the photograph and, later, Googled her name. The names Kelley Hazel, Gemma Atkinson and Lucy Pinder don’t mean anything to me at all. What do they do? Do they actually do anything? I didn’t even know the Cosby Show was on television until its second or third season.

I’m not screaming and hollering about R. Kelly but you can’t be seriously arguing that he does not have a problem. I greatly revere Miles Davis but it is a fact that he was physically abusive toward women. He was never charged or convicted of anything having to do with assaulting a woman but that does not mean that he did not assault them.

And yeah, Kelly probably has a problem. There’s still something unsettling about progressives in general screaming and howling that R.Kelly didn’t get convicted based on almost no evidence simply because he was accused of a crime against a child. We have something like a 95% conviction rate in this country, it’s hard to come to the conclusion that we let too many people off.

Yes, but then the trial judge would not allow the prosecution to introduce evidence that Kelly had paid settlements to four other underage girls who he had been accused of having sexual relationships with. So even if we agree that the evidence in this case was shaky – the alleged victim who is Kelly’s goddaughter refused to testify – can we agree that Kelly has a problem?

Okay, I like women who have hips but Kardashian’s claim to fame seems to be based on this fact alone rather than having any real talent.

The Evidence against R.Kelley was actually fairly shitty. A grainy video-tape where nobody can actually see any details, you can’t make out the faces of the participants, and where both R.Kelley and the alleged victim both say it isn’t them on the tape; thats not real evidence of anything. It would be difficult to get a conviction under those circumstances no matter who the defendant was.

It’s come to the point that celebrities can’t be found guilty of anything, regardless of the level of evidence.