i’m suprised no one seems to have point-blank asked him who his parents were in court, or if they did why that wasn’t the beginning and end of the case
What’s the old trope where a dog or cat comes running to its true owner? They could have set something like that up with the kid. That or the Solomon treatment.
Oh that’s still a phenomenon today. There’s a great Boondocks episode about it - s1e2 “The Trial of R. Kelly”. A famous musician (R. Kelly) gets charged for peeing on a 14-year old girl (in a kind of sexual way, i’d say). During court, a lot of arguments are made:
(prosecutor) A crime is a crime no matter who commits it
(prosecutor) She was clearly underage, there’s unambiguous video footage of the incident
(prosecutor) Where would we be if we allowed lawlessness to rule?
(defendant) R. Kelly is black and therefore racially persecuted
(defendant) Even the greeks did sexual acts with underage people, and didn’t they lay the foundation for our glorious nation?
(defendant) His music is cool and the people like him, so who cares
In the end, people start playing music in the courtroom, people start dancing and R. Kelly is set free. It’s such a comically brilliant way to display the absurdity of life. It’s available for free here btw. Watch it, it’s worth it.
During the whole trial, nobody thought of asking the victim whether she feels she was abused. At some point, she casually mentions she didn’t mind it and would voluntarily do it again. Her word wasn’t even considered during the whole trial.
i’m suprised no one seems to have point-blank asked him who his parents were in court, or if they did why that wasn’t the beginning and end of the case
This was back in the era where ‘children should be seen and not heard’. So the kid and his opinions weren’t considered important, unfortunately.
What’s the old trope where a dog or cat comes running to its true owner? They could have set something like that up with the kid. That or the Solomon treatment.
Well nobody was seeing the kid because the two look nothing alike in that comparison photo from the newspapers.
Because he was a four year old boy, I reckon.
Four is old enough to know who your parents are though.
I think you meant to reply to the comment about him being only four.
I did. Fuck.
It’s too late now. Look at what you’ve done!
I ruined Lemmy :(
Oh that’s still a phenomenon today. There’s a great Boondocks episode about it - s1e2 “The Trial of R. Kelly”. A famous musician (R. Kelly) gets charged for peeing on a 14-year old girl (in a kind of sexual way, i’d say). During court, a lot of arguments are made:
In the end, people start playing music in the courtroom, people start dancing and R. Kelly is set free. It’s such a comically brilliant way to display the absurdity of life. It’s available for free here btw. Watch it, it’s worth it.
During the whole trial, nobody thought of asking the victim whether she feels she was abused. At some point, she casually mentions she didn’t mind it and would voluntarily do it again. Her word wasn’t even considered during the whole trial.
Nor should it have been.
There’s a reason some crimes are statutory, this is not at all even comparable to asking the child regarding factual information of the case.
Yep! Where’s the voice of the child?