I watched the US prosecutors and police - inspired by our brilliant Police and CPS over here - use this trick of "bundling" against Bill Cosby. It worked (as so often it works in the UK). So now they do it to Kelly. Same false accuser (recently on TV like the Michael Jackson false accusers with the hairy forearms). Same claims. But the media picks up on it like hawks (Celebrity - great headlines) and prints the allegations, influencing future jurors (which is the trick with "bundling").

Let me explain "bundling". If someone says they were forced into sex, by phrasing it differently it can amount to 54 charges; different days and times, alternative acts, different clothing or porn films or dialogue or drink or drugs...

A great Story! "Hundreds of new charges". He (or she) MUST be guilty!

Judges of course tell jurors to put bullshit out of their minds (easier said than done; you would not believe the subtle pressure on our brain cells as we consume information every few seconds).

JK2006 wrote:
I watched the US prosecutors and police - inspired by our brilliant Police and CPS over here - use this trick of "bundling" against Bill Cosby. It worked (as so often it works in the UK). So now they do it to Kelly. Same false accuser (recently on TV like the Michael Jackson false accusers with the hairy forearms). Same claims. But the media picks up on it like hawks (Celebrity - great headlines) and prints the allegations, influencing future jurors (which is the trick with "bundling").



Again we see the assumption that the accuser was a false accuser, we don't know if they are or not. Kelly has already been caught on video having sex with someone that almost certainly was underage. It is only a technicality and very expensive lawyers that saw him acquitted. Going on Mr Kelly's personality and arrogance, and his highly sexed videos if wouldn't surprise me at all if many of these allegations are true, of course though you need proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Really not sure about the USA...you've lived there...but in the UK I'm hoping the general public and the CPS have started to look deeper into things....was reading they are prosecuting less,but getting a higher conviction rate...of course the usual suspects do not like it...the latest being they do not want any evidence from pre trial councilling being admisable...along with phone and social media evidence....

...who needs the truth?

Had your original trial been now it would have gone the not guilty route as have all the others...goodness only knows with all the media attention with R.Kelly

There you go again Robbie; Presumption of Innocence means allegations without proof are False. I've not seen that video; know nothing about birth certificates or passports; have no information about the last case except he was acquitted. And, in my experience, accusers are nearly always exaggerating, often making totally fictitious claims, sometimes genuinely deluded but frequently, if wealth or celebrity is involved, after cash compensation.

JK2006 wrote:
There you go again Robbie; Presumption of Innocence means allegations without proof are False.

I totally agree that there is too much hype and presumed guilt amongst the media on this subject, because that is where the story is and some people were probably convicted too easily and without enough evidence. However if an allegation has not been proven either way, then it is an unproven allegation rather than a false allegation. I could say that I went on America 40 years ago, could I prove it, probably not because there would be no records on computers on cctv, however this doesn't mean that it is false.

But if someone accuses you of killing someone in America 40 years ago, that must be considered false unless they can produce evidence that it is true and prove it in court Robbie. Gossip and rumour should not be considered true automatically.

True delusions or mistakes are not false allegations, so I assume everyone is innocent until the verdict. (occasionally after)

robbiex wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
There you go again Robbie; Presumption of Innocence means allegations without proof are False.

I totally agree that there is too much hype and presumed guilt amongst the media on this subject, because that is where the story is and some people were probably convicted too easily and without enough evidence. However if an allegation has not been proven either way, then it is an unproven allegation rather than a false allegation. I could say that I went on America 40 years ago, could I prove it, probably not because there would be no records on computers on cctv, however this doesn't mean that it is false.

Guilt under law should require evidence...and under current circumstances it does not...only coming down to who is the best performer...

...I'm sure Doctor King is simply pointing out the obvious...that a justice system that requires no real evidence is not a good idea...the guilty will walk free the innocent like JK will have their best years stolen because our law enforcement and justice system are broken...

...as the Venerable Doctor has told us many times we make no assumptions, but we do ask questions,and ask for proof ...innocent until proven...

Not sure about this Kelly chap,being rich certainly helps more stateside.