You okay?
yep he should have got the fuck. outta here
A dumb muhfucka will just say anything, won't yall?
Wont stop you from following me in every thread and responding to them though.
"Damn! My brother did that shit again?!"
Not sure if there’s a statute of limitations on this from me in Illinois but this might be a smoking gun.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/entertainment/r-kelly-investigation/index.html
CNN has seen tape Avenatti says shows R. Kelly having sex with underage girl
This story contains language and descriptions that may be upsetting to some readers.
(CNN) — Prosecutors investigating R. Kelly are looking into a newly surfaced video featuring the R&B superstar, lawyer Michael Avenatti told CNN.
CNN has seen the VHS tape that appears to show Kelly having sex with a girl who refers to her body parts as 14 years old. Avenatti, who is representing a man he calls a whistleblower against Kelly, says he handed the tape to the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in Chicago last weekend.
"My client knows the identity of the girl and R. Kelly. He identified the two of them on the videotape. He worked for and has known R. Kelly for decades and he met the girl on a number of occasions," Avenatti said.
On Thursday, Avenatti tweeted out a statement describing the tape.
Steve Greenberg, Kelly's attorney, told CNN he had not heard of the development.
"We are unaware of any new information involving Mr. Kelly," he told CNN. "We have not been contacted by anyone. We have not been informed about any new information by anyone and we have not been contacted by law enforcement."
Tandra R. Simonton, chief communications officer for the State's Attorney's Office said: "We cannot confirm or deny an investigation."
What's on the tape
The newly unearthed footage, which lasts 42 minutes and 45 seconds, is clear and explicit.
There are two scenes on the video: one apparently in a living room and another in a bedroom. A naked man who appears to be R. Kelly is seen performing multiple sex acts with the girl. She is heard calling him "daddy" multiple times.
It is impossible to know her age just from the video. They both refer to her "14-year-old p***y." Six times the girl refers to her genitalia as 14 years old.
At one point, the man asks the girl to urinate. After she does, he urinates on her.
What is on the video mirrors some of the alleged acts for which Kelly was arrested for child pornography in 2002, when he was 35, and then acquitted six years later.
That case centered on another video involving a man having sex with a girl who prosecutors said was as young as 13 years old, media reports said.
Much was made at the trial about the identity of the man on the tape and whether an identifying mole on Kelly was visible on that video.
In the new video reviewed by CNN, a small mole can be seen on the man's back just to the left of his spine.
Kelly has been associated with claims of sexual misconduct with minors and other crimes for more than two decades. He has been sued by multiple women accusing him of having sex with them when they were underage. He has denied the accusations and all cases, with the exception of the trial where he was acquitted, have been settled out of court.
And while he is one of the most successful R&B acts in history, there has been a growing movement against him.
Music industry colleagues and former fans backed a #MuteRKelly campaign to stop his music being played.
In July 2017, Buzzfeed published an explosive article outlining claims that Kelly was holding a group of adult women against their will as part of what some of their parents say was a "cult."
A group of people cited in the article claimed that their daughters, ages 18 to 31, were a part of an entourage of at least six women attached to Kelly.
Joycelyn Savage, one of the young women, denied those claims and asked her parents, via a video shared with TMZ, to stop speaking out about her relationship with Kelly.
In January 2019, the release of a docuseries called "Surviving R. Kelly" on Lifetime television helped boost the public campaign against him.
In that series women said they were kept in abusive sexual relationships.
After the series aired, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx urged potential victims or witnesses to speak to police.
At the same time, Kelly's attorney, Greenberg, told CNN that his client "has done nothing wrong ... Someone with an agenda has done a hit piece," Greenberg said of the docuseries. "(Kelly's) out in public. He's not hiding. There's no secret compound with sex slaves."
CNN's Lisa Respers France contributed to this story.
I mean........
How is this any different from the last tape that clearly showed him urinating on a girl that was clearly underage in a sauna that I can confirm was inside his old house, because I've seen it with my own two eyes....
If that nigga could get acquitted by a Jury after seeing the last 27 minute under-age sex tape where he was urinating on a girl that called him daddy...
Why does anyone think this is going to be any different.
R. Kelly Is Acquitted in Child Pornography Case
By DAVID STREITFELDJUNE 14, 2008
CHICAGO — It took more than six years for prosecutors to get the R&B star R. Kelly into court on charges of child pornography. It only took a few hours for a jury to declare him not guilty on all 14 counts.
Mr. Kelly had been accused of making a 27-minute sex tape with an under-age female. But a high-powered defense team convinced the jury of nine men and three women that the identity of the girl was not conclusive.
As the verdicts were being read on Friday, the singer started crying and whispering “Thank you Jesus, thank you Jesus, thank you Jesus,” over and over again, his lawyers said.
Mr. Kelly, 41, whose signature song is “I Believe I Can Fly,” saluted a crowd of his fans as he left court and then put his hand on his heart. He made no remarks, but the impassive face he had worn during the four-week trial showed a flicker of a smile.
In the same courtroom where the trial was conducted, five jurors told reporters that the absence of testimony from the alleged victim was a big handicap. “All of us felt the grayness of the case," one juror said.
As outlined in the prosecution’s opening and closing statements, the case was intended to be clear-cut: the “sweet, nice, lovely” victim was introduced to Mr. Kelly at the age of 12 by her aunt, a protégé of Mr. Kelly’s named Stephanie Edwards. But instead of making the girl a star, Mr. Kelly preyed on her, made her do “vile, disgusting” things and filmed them. Since Mr. Kelly knew she was under age, the state said, he was guilty of making child pornography.
Expert witnesses for the prosecution said that the VHS tape, whose origin is unknown, was a multigeneration copy but had not been tampered with. Prosecutors also pointed out how the man on the tape turned his back briefly to the camera. It was less than a quarter of a second, but enough time to see a mole on his back — just like the one Mr. Kelly has.
While 14 witnesses for the prosecution identified the girl in the tape, and some identified Mr. Kelly as well, only one tied them together in a sexual relationship. That was Lisa Van Allen, who testified that she had a three-way sexual encounter with them.
Ms. Van Allen, who received state and federal immunity to testify, did not appear to be an unimpeachable witness. She told the court that she had first had sex with Mr. Kelly at age 17, immediately after being introduced to him on the set of one of his videos, and admitted that she stole a $20,000 Rolex from him. Her current boyfriend and a former boyfriend are both felons.
The defense team called her a liar and extortionist and compared her, literally, to Satan.
Mr. Kelly’s lawyers, who included Edward Genson, Sam Adam and his son, Sam Adam Jr., filed so many motions that they helped delay the start of the trial for six years. But once in court, the lawyers adopted a minimalist approach, limiting their side of the story to two days. Mr. Kelly did not testify.
Photo
R. Kelly after the verdict.CreditJohn Gress/Reuters
At the time this seemed to reveal a weakness of the defense’s case. The defense team never even denied that the tape had been shot in Mr. Kelly’s former home.
As portrayed by Sam Adam Jr. in closing arguments, Mr. Kelly was less predator than prey, the victim of a loose conspiracy by Ms. Edwards, whose career disappeared after a falling-out with the star, as well as Ms. Van Allen and others searching for a payoff, revenge or both.
“This whole thing, from beginning to end, is about money,” Mr. Adam said.
Flailing his arms, he suggested not one but many alternate narratives: that the mole on the back of the man in the film didn’t exist, was a computer blip or was inserted by an unknown someone for nefarious purposes; that the film itself was a fake; that it had computer morphing in it like the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park”; or that it starred models or prostitutes who looked like Mr. Kelly and his alleged victim.
He proposed that the jury would not recognize the woman, who is now 23, if she were sitting in the courtroom.
“Let’s cut to the chase,” he said. “How do you victimize a person when she says, ‘It’s not me’?”
For good measure, he suggested it was the jury’s patriotic duty to find the singer innocent.
After the verdict, when a reporter asked Mr. Adam if he would now be raising his rates, he smiled broadly and said: “I don’t have any hourly rate. I do everything pro bono when I fight for the innocent like Mr. Kelly.”
The prosecution team, at a post-trial news conference, looked both stoic and shocked.
“Child pornography cases can be extremely difficult in many ways,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine, noting that the victims often do not consider themselves victims. “If we receive similar evidence today or tomorrow, we are going to bring that case.”
Leonard Cavise, a professor of law at DePaul University who was skeptical of the prosecutors’ case, said the optimistic way to look at the verdict was that “this is a victory for the concept of reasonable doubt.” The jury, he said, “is saying, ‘We weren’t totally sure it was the girl, we weren’t totally sure it was him.’ ”
The negative way, Mr. Cavise said, would be this: “The jury gave him the extra benefit of the doubt because of who he is, just like the O. J. Simpson jury.”
In some ways, this case did not resemble the Simpson case. R. Kelly is a Chicago success story and still makes his home here, yet as a public spectacle the trial was something of a bust.
The courthouse is in an inconveniently located neighborhood, the charges were old, and allegations of the singer’s interest in under-age women are older still. On most days there was more courtroom security than spectators.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/arts/music/14kell.html
Oh and in conclusion...
This nigga is guilty..
U a fool B.Is he finished or is he done?
This does sound a lil fishy especially if he has her saying she is 14 multiple times 8n the video. HOWEVER, CNN ain't gonna put their rep on the line without watching and being at least 95% sure. This might be Done Dadda for ol boy
fuck that - I got $10 on Kelly and after the shit settles
expect another song from him like this
We been down this same road before. I thought he was done last time but he skated so I don't know if he done.Is he finished or is he done?
I mean........
How is this any different from the last tape that clearly showed him urinating on a girl that was clearly underage in a sauna that I can confirm was inside his old house, because I've seen it with my own two eyes....
If that nigga could get acquitted by a Jury after seeing the last 27 minute under-age sex tape where he was urinating on a girl that called him daddy...
Why does anyone think this is going to be any different.
R. Kelly Is Acquitted in Child Pornography Case
By DAVID STREITFELDJUNE 14, 2008
CHICAGO — It took more than six years for prosecutors to get the R&B star R. Kelly into court on charges of child pornography. It only took a few hours for a jury to declare him not guilty on all 14 counts.
Mr. Kelly had been accused of making a 27-minute sex tape with an under-age female. But a high-powered defense team convinced the jury of nine men and three women that the identity of the girl was not conclusive.
As the verdicts were being read on Friday, the singer started crying and whispering “Thank you Jesus, thank you Jesus, thank you Jesus,” over and over again, his lawyers said.
Mr. Kelly, 41, whose signature song is “I Believe I Can Fly,” saluted a crowd of his fans as he left court and then put his hand on his heart. He made no remarks, but the impassive face he had worn during the four-week trial showed a flicker of a smile.
In the same courtroom where the trial was conducted, five jurors told reporters that the absence of testimony from the alleged victim was a big handicap. “All of us felt the grayness of the case," one juror said.
As outlined in the prosecution’s opening and closing statements, the case was intended to be clear-cut: the “sweet, nice, lovely” victim was introduced to Mr. Kelly at the age of 12 by her aunt, a protégé of Mr. Kelly’s named Stephanie Edwards. But instead of making the girl a star, Mr. Kelly preyed on her, made her do “vile, disgusting” things and filmed them. Since Mr. Kelly knew she was under age, the state said, he was guilty of making child pornography.
Expert witnesses for the prosecution said that the VHS tape, whose origin is unknown, was a multigeneration copy but had not been tampered with. Prosecutors also pointed out how the man on the tape turned his back briefly to the camera. It was less than a quarter of a second, but enough time to see a mole on his back — just like the one Mr. Kelly has.
While 14 witnesses for the prosecution identified the girl in the tape, and some identified Mr. Kelly as well, only one tied them together in a sexual relationship. That was Lisa Van Allen, who testified that she had a three-way sexual encounter with them.
Ms. Van Allen, who received state and federal immunity to testify, did not appear to be an unimpeachable witness. She told the court that she had first had sex with Mr. Kelly at age 17, immediately after being introduced to him on the set of one of his videos, and admitted that she stole a $20,000 Rolex from him. Her current boyfriend and a former boyfriend are both felons.
The defense team called her a liar and extortionist and compared her, literally, to Satan.
Mr. Kelly’s lawyers, who included Edward Genson, Sam Adam and his son, Sam Adam Jr., filed so many motions that they helped delay the start of the trial for six years. But once in court, the lawyers adopted a minimalist approach, limiting their side of the story to two days. Mr. Kelly did not testify.
Photo
R. Kelly after the verdict.CreditJohn Gress/Reuters
At the time this seemed to reveal a weakness of the defense’s case. The defense team never even denied that the tape had been shot in Mr. Kelly’s former home.
As portrayed by Sam Adam Jr. in closing arguments, Mr. Kelly was less predator than prey, the victim of a loose conspiracy by Ms. Edwards, whose career disappeared after a falling-out with the star, as well as Ms. Van Allen and others searching for a payoff, revenge or both.
“This whole thing, from beginning to end, is about money,” Mr. Adam said.
Flailing his arms, he suggested not one but many alternate narratives: that the mole on the back of the man in the film didn’t exist, was a computer blip or was inserted by an unknown someone for nefarious purposes; that the film itself was a fake; that it had computer morphing in it like the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park”; or that it starred models or prostitutes who looked like Mr. Kelly and his alleged victim.
He proposed that the jury would not recognize the woman, who is now 23, if she were sitting in the courtroom.
“Let’s cut to the chase,” he said. “How do you victimize a person when she says, ‘It’s not me’?”
For good measure, he suggested it was the jury’s patriotic duty to find the singer innocent.
After the verdict, when a reporter asked Mr. Adam if he would now be raising his rates, he smiled broadly and said: “I don’t have any hourly rate. I do everything pro bono when I fight for the innocent like Mr. Kelly.”
The prosecution team, at a post-trial news conference, looked both stoic and shocked.
“Child pornography cases can be extremely difficult in many ways,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine, noting that the victims often do not consider themselves victims. “If we receive similar evidence today or tomorrow, we are going to bring that case.”
Leonard Cavise, a professor of law at DePaul University who was skeptical of the prosecutors’ case, said the optimistic way to look at the verdict was that “this is a victory for the concept of reasonable doubt.” The jury, he said, “is saying, ‘We weren’t totally sure it was the girl, we weren’t totally sure it was him.’ ”
The negative way, Mr. Cavise said, would be this: “The jury gave him the extra benefit of the doubt because of who he is, just like the O. J. Simpson jury.”
In some ways, this case did not resemble the Simpson case. R. Kelly is a Chicago success story and still makes his home here, yet as a public spectacle the trial was something of a bust.
The courthouse is in an inconveniently located neighborhood, the charges were old, and allegations of the singer’s interest in under-age women are older still. On most days there was more courtroom security than spectators.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/arts/music/14kell.html
Oh and in conclusion...
This nigga is guilty..
