|
Title: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: Darla on June 13, 2008, 11:01:06 PM http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145335/
Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: spacey on June 13, 2008, 11:03:33 PM Well that just pisses me off.
Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: stroh on June 14, 2008, 06:42:33 AM Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: gleek on June 14, 2008, 09:39:38 AM What a pisser!
Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: stroh on June 14, 2008, 09:51:25 AM Urine over your head.
Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: MFAWG on June 14, 2008, 07:54:30 PM This would seem to be a problem:
http://www.slate.com/id/2193649 Quote As Kelly's lawyers mentioned multiple times, the alleged victim in this case—now a 23-year-old woman—told a grand jury that it wasn't her. While 15 friends and relatives testified that the girl in question was indeed on the video, neither the alleged victim nor her parents showed up in court to testify for either side. Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: gleek on June 14, 2008, 08:01:00 PM Why is this called a "child pröñ" case? Shouldn't this be called a "child ****" case? Isn't the "pröñ" part merely the video evidence of the illegal act that occurred?
Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: stroh on June 14, 2008, 08:08:15 PM Good point.
Sick *fudge*, as spacey would say. Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: birdymaker on June 14, 2008, 08:08:46 PM Why is this called a "child pröñ" case? Shouldn't this be called a "child ****" case? Isn't the "pröñ" part merely the video evidence of the illegal act that occurred? once the tape fell into the hands of a third party it became kiddie pron. Title: Re: R. Kelly found not guilty in child-pröñ case Post by: Spanky on June 14, 2008, 08:49:53 PM [sm_mob] :asshat:
|