Hey man, there were a lot of people at fault. The parents who let their child spend time with Kelly and the agreements they signed. Hampton even spends time talking about the black community turning a blind eye to Kelly and other predators, by keeping quiet.
This quote from this juror points to a larger problem that many victims of sexual assault face - they are not believed when they do speak up, even in a court of law, due to juror prejudice. I have no doubt that the same thing happens with jurors of all stripes and victims of all stripes.
I had heard about this particular juror’s quote on the NPR interview I mentioned earlier. It’s from the documentary. *Salon *was just the first print reference I could find to quote. I quoted it here because it broke my damn heart.
Sorry if you were offended, good sir. But I’m offended too, for other reasons.
“Kelly was taken into custody Wednesday afternoon after appearing at a court hearing on nearly $200,000 in back child support owed by the R&B superstar.”
:rolleyes: At no point in the article does it ever say anything remotely like that.
All it does is say that one guy’s reason for not believing the victims may have been racist, given what he said about his reasoning. He didn’t say he disbelieved them because their stories didn’t add up, or that there was better evidence. It was just how they acted–which might have some legitimacy if they were acting suspicious–and how they dressed–which has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, and makes us question what he means by “how they act.” They then suggest that it’s possible that similar attitudes may be part of why Kelly could get away with it, based on a history of black women not being accepted.
You’re the one making the jump to thinking this attacks white people. The article only at most brings up racists. Hell, it even mentions black women downplaying black victims.
Saying bad things about racism or racists is NOT attacking white people.
So a white man, who served on a jury and voted to aquit a black defendant, despite the testimony of black witnesses for the prosecution is now a racist, eh?
Is that what your esteemed professional colleagues at your prestegious, successful, high-pressure career think too?
Not believing them because of the way they speak or act isn’t legitimate, but isn’t racist, either. There’s no indication that he disbelieved them because of their skin color. On top of which he apparently believed the accused who was equally black.
Besides, rape and sexual assault cases are often decided on the basis of the respective “credibility” of the accuser and accused, which isn’t going to be much less subjective.
So it’s cool to scrog little kids, but don’t dare be late on that child support! (because, you know, the state gets it’s administration fee from the child support).
Kelly’s previous attorney has made a huge violation of attorney ethics by coming out and saying he was guilty as hell at his first trial. Since the lawyer is dying of cancer he doesn’t give a fuck about the breach of trust.
He may have been a juror on the trial but he never heard a victim testify at that trial. So he may have been talking generalities about the newer allegations but he never had the chance to hear the victim because she did not cooperate.
The following is about sexual assault investigations in general not specifically the R Kelly case: It is both a feature and a bug of our criminal justice system. You must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means when all you have is testimony from two people with vastly different accounts it is very easy for there to be reasonable doubt. The trick is to not have the jury believe the victim, but to have all 12 believe beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of the time people find that to be a good thing. When it is a sexual assault trial then people want to change the constitution. I’ve dealt with it for many years. And then of course you have unreasonable idiots on juries. Many times you can’t predict it. So often there are plea-bargain’s in sexual assault cases which causes outrage to the public. The perception is suspects get off easy but the reality is it’s better to get a conviction than roll the dice. You never know what a jury will do and you know the victim is going to go through hell on the stand. I’ve seen many outcomes that I hate it but I understood why it had to happen.
Or maybe it’s because there’s very little nuance involved. You either paid or you didn’t. No testimony, tracking down witnesses from years ago, no evidence, no giant investigation. And it’s also civil contempt not a criminal matter.