Remember the R Kelly sex allegations of a few years ago?
Well, it's just come to trial.
Does anyone know why it has taken this long (is it just the American system) ?

There have been many reasons ITK - ill health the main one, of various parties - but the whole thing sinks.

He says it's not him in the photo but - worse - even the girl in it says it's not her either.

Just another chapter in the tragedy of which mine was an early one.

Why make comparisons?

Apparantly as well, the man in the sex video hasn't got a mole on his back, yet R'Kelly has. If that is the case, then why is it even taking place.

I have only been involved in one court case (I was a witness for the defence) and that was an absolute shambles, and the judge more or less told the jury to plead not guilty. I cannot make comparisons, as it was a totally different case.

I'll make this assumption, that it appears that JK is very cynical about court cases (not surprising really). No-one can tell him not to be, as the man has been involved in a very high-profile court case where he was found guilty, given a seven year conviction. I suspect that anybody would make comparisons if they feel they have been a part of a miscarriage of justice.

Having seen (clean) screengrabs from the video, it's definitely him. There are allegations of him having paid off the girl in the video and her family for years. A few friends of mine in the business in Chicago have said that he has a history of doing this.

I haven't followed this story at all.

From reading this thread I gather the case against him is a bit iffy. Both he and the girl claim it isn't them in the video. There are such things as look-a-likes. His history could mean it's easier to convince people that it is him, even if it isn't - which could have been someone's intention.

Reasonable doubt at least.

I would think JK would have every reason to be interested in cases like this. I certainly am and although never having faced a charge I've had to attend court on behalf of friends on charges.

I'll never forget one about 30 years ago when a clown busker friend was arrested on Portobello Road and my wife and a few friends were all arrested for "hindering police".ie: complaining to them.

It was quite funny when it got to court as a barrister offered his services for free and the clown got found "not guilty" as the police got all twisted up in their evidence about where his clown's red nose had been found.

When it came to my wife to appear at Knightsbridge she walked into court and the judge just dismissed the charges withour even hearing them and she even got about 60 pounds expenses for the day-a fortune at the time. Outside the tosser of an arresting cop said.."oh we are always wrong aren't we, the police"..and we said "but you lied so blatantly and it was obvious to everyone including the judge".
But what was the cost to the taxpayer for this charade ?..a small fortune about a clown trying to make a few quid on Portobello Road and when he got carted off all the little kids burst into tears.

I follow court cases all the time now.