I just read that on my Google page. Those thumps you just heard? That was my jaw, followed by my fists, hitting the desk.

I dont think it is appropriate for you to assume guilt and claim that you know more than the court.

yeah i've been following slate's coverage of the trial and i kinda thought it would end this way. unfortunately.

Given what I know of the case, this verdict doesn't seem shocking. The woman who he was claimed to be having sex with denied it. There isn't any DNA evidence proving it's him. The only evidence is a videotape, in which there appears to be a reasonable doubt that it's him.

Since the standard in our legal system is "beyond a reasonable doubt", this seems to be a reasonable verdict.

That said, I hadn't heard anything about this case before today, and know very little about R. Kelly.

Is there some other factor against him of which I am unaware?

It's called rich mans justice. I will always believe he paid off that girls family to testify that it was not her in the tape. This comes as no surprise, once you acknowledge that we live in a rape culture.

I wonder what the jury relied on that created reasonable doubt. The coverage seemed to suggest that the defense spent a lot of time trying to prove that the person in the video didn't have a mole where R. Kelly does. I wonder if that did it.

Renee, why will you "always believe he paid off that girls family"? Has there been some suggestion of bribery to date? I'm asking because I don't know whether there has been or not.

How exactly did the prosecution think they were going to convict him without dealing with the mole? Or is that in rape cases people are presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Yes, the "mole" was reasonable doubt. I've seen the video in question and there is no way to ID the man in the picture. In fact I can name a few black celebs who would have fit the profile of the character on tape.

The tape was poor evidence and if the girl in question was unwilling to testify, it wasn't so much rich man's justice as it was a really bad set of evidence.

I don't know much about R Kelly, and I was never there at the trial so I don't think that I am in a position to make judgments against him. However, I'm always a little skeptical when celebrities get off so easy because it happens so often.

Gee, somebody named Andrew finds it reasonable.

Moles can be removed, duh.

R. Kelly married Aaliyah when she was fifteen.

Not being a lawyer, and not having seen a transcript, all I can say is that what has been reported about the case seemed weak. The video was fuzzy and didn't allow an easy establishment of identity, there was no other physical evidence, the only eye witness admitted to stealing an expensive watch ($20K) from the defendant, could not name a corroborating witness, and the victim herself refuted the charges.

It was a crappy case. Would I want to have my under-age daughter around him? No, not even close. But would I want anyone to be convicted with such marginal and equivocal evidence? Also, no.

Far from "rich man's justice", I'd say that this case would never have been brought if the defendant hadn't had such a high profile.

Ginmar,

The point of the "mole" controversey was that R. Kelly still has the mole, but the mole is not on the man in the tape. The defense was making the point that the mole should have been in the tape 6 years ago if it was R. Kelly since he still has it. Just an FYI.

Not surprised.

I didn't pay attention so I can't comment on evidence or anything, but celebrities always get acquitted.

BTW, I'm surprised you guys haven't posted about Tim Russert yet.

I have to say that my gut instinct when I first heard that the other woman allegedly in the video was denying it, was that she had been paid off.

It was a pretty crappy case though. Reasonable doubt is the key phrase.

I totally agree with you Jessica...I don't think I need to be on a jury to pass judgment on this case..

ginmar said: "Gee, somebody named Andrew finds it reasonable."

How very enlightened of you.

It's a good thing most of you know how to assign guilt better than the criminal justice system.

It's a good thing most of you know how to assign guilt better than the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system doesn't assign guilt to anyone.

Everyday people (peers, if you will), just like the posters and commenters here, do.

Believe it or not, ellestar, the criminal justice system does include juries, and you knew what I meant before you posted a comment literally about nothing.

Good one, ellestar.

Juries were what I was referring to. They are not "the criminal justice system." The criminal justice system includes the institutions of police, court system, and correctional/rehabilitation facilities.

Your comment that the criminal justice system assigns guilt, not people, seems like you were assigning more objectivity to the decision-making process than actually occurs. The people commenting here just as easily could have been on the jury and able to assign guilt as the jury that was picked.

So yes, most of us here know how to assign guilt (while not better than) just as well as "the criminal justice system" you referred to.

I am speechless too.

I wonder if an artist has any idea how to cover a mole with stage makeup? Hmmm. And what girl wants to admit to being raped? This whole thing is disgusting- the verdict, and that it took so damn long to go to trail.

Really? I see people in this thread who weren't at the trial and didn't serve on the jury claiming that Kelly either got off because he's rich, a celebrity, or benefits from a rape culture presuming he didn't do it. There was plenty of reasonable doubt and he should have and did get acquitted. Even if he did do it, the prosecution failed to prove its case and I'd sacrifice the rape - or murder - of someone for the integrity and ideals of the justice system.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on this case. I lived in Chicago the first couple of times this case looked like it was going to trial and if it had, I could have been on that jury.

But I also have a ton of experience with the criminal justice system. And while it's great that you think you know enough about this case to probably vote for acquittal, you're assuming everyone would.

It's a hard fact that people and juries can convict or acquit regardless of the evidence presented. I watched a case where a man was caught doing something illegal, admitted it outright, and never denied the crime. His lawyer asked the jury to acquit him anyway. They did. It can happen the other way if a person of color is prosecuted in front of a racist jury.

Knowing how to assign guilt is really something that anyone who is asked to show up to jury duty is presumed to know. Lawyers try to keep the people with obvious bias off the juries, but the entire process, from start to finish is all quite subjective. To a scary degree.

Maybe the people who are commenting with shock would have a different opinion if they sat on the jury. Or maybe they would have read more between the lines of the evidence presented and come to a different conclusion than this jury did. Either way, their opinion would have counted just the same as those that did sit on the jury.

I am usually in agreement about the things you post on this site. Not so in this occasion. Why are you shocked that he was acquitted ? He is a wealthy famous black male, therefore any accusation of sexual assault must automatically be true ? As a previous poster noted, had this been anyone must a wealthy famous black male this case would have been laughed out of the courts years ago.

Here are the facts

1) They have a reportedly poor quality video which does not clearly show the victim or the perpertrator

2) R. Kelly says it is not him

3) the alleged victim says its not her

4) the man in the video has physical characteristics which do not match R. Kelly

5) There is no physical evidence (ie a rape kit) to prove anything

6) There is no police report or allegations

7) The witness who says it was R. Kelly was unreliable

8) The witness who says it was the girl was unreliable because she liked to embellish things.

Im sure most readers here are American, and therefore must be familiar with reasonable doubt. In this case the prosecution has barely even presented a reasonable scenario showing R. Kelly to be the man in the video.

As for the marraige to Aaliyah

1) Aaliyah denied it ever happened

2) R. Kelly denied it ever happened

3) Aaliyah's brother and family denied it ever happened

4) Aaliyah's official posthumous biography denied it ever happened

All the show it to have happened is a photocopy of a marriage license obtained by MTV around the time R. Kelly's record label was trying to drum up sales for Aaliyah's "Age Ain't Nothing But a Number".

It is really unreasonable to think this urban legend is nothing more than a PR campaign which, in light of tragic events (Aaliyah's death and R. Kelly's trial) has come back a few times ?

Please dont say this is rich man's justice. R. Kelly being acquitted, in light of the evidence, is just. Now, hopefully he will sue whatever brainless career-builder allowed this case to be tried in the first place and get back some of his lost revenue. And just to be clear I am not a fan of R. Kelly (although trapped in the closet was entertaining).

"2) R. Kelly says it is not him"

Imagine that.

"6) There is no police report or allegations"

How can this be true?

Gee, Daoist ignores centuries of oppression of women by men.

How very enlightened of you.

Like a guy in show biz wouldn't be able to cover up a mole, too. For fuck's sake already.

A male, # 6 I believe refers to the fact that no criminal complaint was ever brought until this tape made the rounds on the internet. Since no contemporaneous complaint was made, no physical evidence.

So far as the woman who supposedly was the girl in the video, a couple of thoughts: if she admitted to being the girl, then she would be "that girl that R. Kelly peed on" forever. Who wants to be that girl? And I agree, it's hard to get around the issue of the mole. I doubt that stage makeup was used to cover it up, considering that you supposedly see him undress. The sad thing is, if he's truly innocent of this, then the smear will still stick to him forever.

By pointing out that R. Kelly says its not him, I mean to make that point that it is now the prosecutions duty to prove that it is him. They were unable to do this.

By there being no police report or allegations I mean this girl they claim was raped had not claimed to be raped. It is therefore their responsibility to prove she was raped and that he raped her. They could not do this.

They cannot prove this girl was raped. They cannot prove he raped her or anyone. They cannot prove he is the man in the video. They cannot prove the age of the girl in the video.

Therefore, when asked if the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that R. Kelly raped this girl the answer had to be no.

Period.

The verdict happened because of the jury that was picked. The case was won or lost (as most are) by the end of jury selection. You let me pick 12-14 people who are going to respect the presumption of innocence, give me a few flaws in the evidence, and the jury will return a not-guilty verdict.

Conversely, you let me pick 12 big "law and order" types who are willing to overlook flaws in the evidence to convict, and the jury will return a guilty verdict.

I don't want to sound too harsh on the jury system, because I really respect it, but most people have so many unreflective prejudices biases that people aware of them (i.e., lawyers) can exploit them without those people realizing that they're being manipulated.

"6) There is no police report or allegations"

How can this be true?

Because that's how it happened. The tape was old before it was sent to the newspaper. The newspaper sent it to the police. There was never a police complaint made by the supposed victim.

I'm not surprised by the verdict. Not because I think it's rich man's justice, but because all of the evidence that I read about was not conclusive proof. It would be irresponsible to convict someone because a makeup artist *could* have covered up a mole - no evidence was presented that R Kelly kept a makeup artist with him at all times or often uses makeup to cover the mole. When your alleged victim denies she was a victim, and there is no physical evidence to counter her denial, there's not much you can do to press that issue either.

I'm not a lawyer, but it really seems like the evidence simply wasn't there in this particular case. Does it mean that R Kelly is a wonderful person who wouldn't harm a fly? Not necessarily. There's a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" - one is a moral judgment, the other is legal.

R. Kelly has been involved with other underage girls. That sets precedent. As for the tape - I need people to stop concentrating on this mole thing. I have several I was not born with, and some that I was born with have disappeared. I really hope that was not the clincher for the jury.

As a point of fact, R Kelly was never charged with Rape on any of the counts. All the charges he was acquitted of had to do with child pornography for filming and distributing the video tape of sex with a minor.

It's shit like this that explain why I waver between fascism and anarchism.

btw: Read more on this, the jury gave interviews with the media within five hours of the verdict. They were all in a consensus about the fact that it was, in fact, R. Kelly in the video. How they then arrive at "the prosecution didn't present enough evidence." boggles my tiny fucking mind.

Once again I'm faced with the fact that I live in, possibly, one of the best societies to live in and it still produces events which make me want to either gouge out my own eyes, eat a bullet, or try and trigger the apocalypse.

America has the greatest justice system in the world...if you have unlimited amounts of money. You can always get a fair trial then. I don't know anything about this case, but from what people are saying, it sounds like there was reasonable doubt, just as there was in the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials: reasonable doubt that would have been COMPLETELY disregarded by a jury not FORCED to pay attention to it by the best lawyers in the business. Any other black man would have been convicted on the same evidence seen here. That's the scandal of American justice, rather than the high probability that R. Kelly actually did this. Better a thousand guilty men go free...

"The sad thing is, if he's truly innocent of this, then the smear will still stick to him forever."

If he were an average man, I would worry about him being unable to overcome a smeared reputation after being found not guilty. But R. Kelly is still going to be rich and loved by millions of female fans even if he does have an unnatural affinity for young teen girls. He doesn't make himself out as an extreme, uh, eccentric like Michael Jackson either, which was damaging in itself even without the elements of sex abuse of young boys.

A couple of things-

Stop bringing up the mole thing. Moles grow and disappear throughout a lifetime, as Jem said. The evidence was poor, however, so I'm not surprised by this verdict. However, R. Kelly fucks teenage girls- he's settled a handful of cases since the 90's. As LogurZed said, the jury thought it WAS him in the video- ridiculous mole arguments aside. We live in a rape culture.

Ginmar, I've noticed on a couple of threads that you dismiss opinions simply because they are posted by men. It sets us back; it's a radical approach that many, myself included, interpret as myopic and detrimental to feminism as a whole. We all have issues/contentions with the patriarchy, and I think you're letting your anger get in front of reason- to be blunt.

Long time reader here.

The Pro R Kelly Commenters here are arguing in a bad faith that is astonishing. Anyone who does a little bit of homework will find out that Kells' modus operandi is to pay off the underage girls that he's slept with. He did it with Aaliyah, and he did it with six other girls, and that's just settlements he's confirmed.

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1006484,061508rkellymusic.article

And the ideas floated around here(that the mole proves his innocence, that it wasnt him on the tape, that R Kelly is an oppressed black man) are beyond the pale of reasonable response.

And yes, the prosecution did a mediocre job in their case. The countering defense, however, that a thirteen year old girl was an unreliable trollop, is one that should gnaw on the conscience of anyone that forwards it, whether it be his defense team or his slavish band of devotees.

The mole is inconclusive. The argument is that it wasn't on the tape, but is on R. Kelly NOW. Duh, moles grow over time.

(The argument that he hid it with body makeup, however, is really reaching. Unless there was evidence presented to address that angle, you as a juror would not be allowed to consider it.)

So the jury found that it was indeed R. Kelly on the tape, despite the mole. What about the girl? Did they decide that it was not her on the tape? I would have to assume so; otherwise how could they possibly acquit? "Yes, it's him; yes, it's a 13-yr-old girl with him; no, he's not guilty." How's that work again?

I think the bigger hurdle to the prosecution's case was the fact that the girl says it wasn't her. In as much as she is the alleged victim of the crime, and she herself says that isn't her on the tape, that's pretty damaging to the prosecution's case. Would a jury convict a man of robbing me at the local 7-Eleven when I testify that I was in a restaurant two cities over at the time displayed on the security videotape?

The remaining angles for the prosecution are a) discredit her alibi, thereby re-implicating R. Kelly, or b) if it really wasn't her, work a little harder at finding out who it really was, and prosecute on that girl's behalf instead.

I'm not saying he's guilty or not. I wasn't at the trial. I'm only speculating on the more obvious ways that the prosecution failed to make their case.

if she admitted to being the girl, then she would be "that girl that R. Kelly peed on" forever. Who wants to be that girl?

Exactly, BlueCat!! I can see how testifying against him might have been difficult in the beginning, but with the added media exposure the thought of going through with it could not have been appealing. And, we've seen how the press treats many victims (I suppose I must preface that with "alleged," lest I be admonished here).

Oh and on moles, it's perfectly normal for a mole to lose pigmentation in a matter of years. Though slightly off-topic, I want to remind everyone that such erratic mole behavior means you should all make sure to get your moles checked!

Jane you made me laugh! So if R. Kelly develops a skin disease we'll have evidence he did it. ;)

"I can see how testifying against him might have been difficult in the beginning, but with the added media exposure the thought of going through with it could not have been appealing."

I don't know what safeguards if any exist, to protect the identity of this girl, now woman, victim. However, she IS "the girl R. Kelly peed on" or "the girl from the video" regardless of whether or not she cooperated with authorities later.

I get the anger. I get that he is probably guilty, that it was probably him. What I don't get is what the jury was supposed to do with it. Remove facts 4, 7 and 8 from Dowew's post and you're still left with a "what to do?" situation.

It strikes me as similar to the Polygamists in Texas- the government took their children away very quickly because they decided that there was abuse without fact to substantiate it. Was there abuse? Yes, I would feel safe saying there was. Do we require more of the law than supposition, insinuation and yes, even educated guesses? I think we do.

This was a very public case, but without an accuser or even a person willing to admit to being on tape, I can't fathom how it would work out, legally, any other way.

The problem with a lot of rape trials is that the average person (the jury) usually thinks of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" as meaning you need hard DNA evidence. You do not need DNA. The testimony of a witness is enough to hand over a guilty verdict. The only way we are going to start getting convictions in rape trials, is by educating the public on rape and also on what "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" actually means.

There should also required IQ tests for jury members.

P.S.
And another thing people need to realize: The defense attorneys can say whatever the hell they want to the media. It does not have to be factual. Do not believe what you hear on t.v. about the details of a case unless they are reading from a court document.

P.S.S.
I'm a sexual assault counselor and I've been to my share of rape trials.
Most rape cases never see a court room. So, when they do go to court you can be 95% sure that the perp did it.