Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BIV, Aug 22, 2007.
Metro News Source:
So is this child porn or not?
It's only for in court. That kind of thing would be allowed for evidence. It won't be released to the public, officially anyway. And if it is, then it is child porn.
Allegedly child porn.
This thing's already been around.
I've never seen it, but I know of at least one person who has. According to him, it's pretty damn questionable as to the age of the girl. And when I say that, I'm not saying it's questionable as to if she's that young, I mean it's highly questionable she's of legal age as R. Kelly is asserting.
Are you taking the side of the ****-monkey?
I havent seen it either. I do remember Patrice saying she looked no older than 14, and friends of mine have said the same.
The title of this thread is misleading. The tape is not being given to the public. It's being played in court.
a friend of mine saw it and said the girl clearly looked young, probably not even 16. r kelly is a bit of a goose.
when does this become hot teen news and how would the tape have made it around the internet but the court had to decide if they would show it or not? wouldnt that have been brought up in court that it is on the net?
oh and one more question. why is the trial starting now 5 years after the "alleged" incident?
She contends that it's not her on the tape so how would showing it then
become a "re-victimization" of her? Sounds like the asst. state attorney
may be pushing a case that might be bogus. Not that that's happened before.
I was going by the title and first line of the story.