Apparently, video evidence of the crime, a weak defense, incredible media scrutiny, and really dopey looking hair braids aren’t enough to convict a guy of buggery in Chicago. Six years after being charged with making and starring in a child porn video, R&B superstar R. Kelly was found not guilty today by a Cook County jury. Both Kelly and the alleged victim denied appearing in the video and neither testified in the case.
It seems the whole defense was built around a mole. No, not a mole like a snitch or the subterranean rodent, but a skin discoloration. Never mind that the prosecution had a witness who testified to being involved in a three-way with Kelly and the victim, and could identify both Kelly and the victim in the video, the blurry tape apparently didn’t have high enough resolution so the guy was sprung.
According to the AP, “the prosecution's star witness was a woman who said she engaged in three-way sex with Kelly and the alleged victim. Defense attorneys argued the man on the tape didn't have a large mole on his back; Kelly has such a mole.”
And here’s a bit of GLONO trivia: Jake and I were at the WXRT studio when the Sun-Times’ pop critic Jim DeRogatis received word that Kelly was about to be arrested. Jake was asked to talk to Kot and DeRo on Sound Opinions about our posting of Jack and Meg White’s marriage license and divorce certificate, and how that blew the lid off their whole brother-sister story. DeRo stumbled in late, arms full of fast food, huffing and puffing about the big story that was about to break the following day. He wouldn’t give any details, but the next day his reporting on the arrest broke and so began this whole mess.
Somewhere, Fatty Arbuckle is spinning in his grave.
[NOTE: This post has been edited for clarity and accuracy--.ed]
Comments
Bullshit, bullshit bullshit. I can't believe this scum bag walked. Not only can celebrity's murder people, now they can fuck and piss on children. Fuck R. Kelly, fuck his fans and supporters and fuck the American Justice system. Maybe when everything's in HD we won't have this problem any more.
He might be not guilty, but he's still a freaky pervert who pees on children.
My wife was working in the South Side at an alternative school for pregnant teens when this all went down, and those little girls all had seen the video weeks before it made the papers.
Kels is a well-established connoisseur and aficionado of teenage poon.
Is there a more perfect job for the wife of a guy who runs a left leaning music site than teaching at an alternative school for pregnant teens? it's like a TV show!
Not only that, but unbeknownst to friends and family, Jake also works for the CIA and when he says he's going to work at his humdrum computer job, he's really battling commies and terrorists.
Once the girl in the vid wouldn't testify it was her, this thing was basically over. It then put the burden of proof too heavily on the prosecution; not to mention R. had a first class legal team.
Lou
"Once the girl in the vid wouldn't testify it was her, this thing was basically over. It then put the burden of proof too heavily on the prosecution; not to mention R. had a first class legal team."
Yeah, I feel prosecutors should know better. I mean, were they surprised/caught off-guard by the above? Didn't they take into consideration that the girl's denial could come up? Aren't they aware by now of what it takes to win a high-profile case with a celebrity who has the resources to put together a tough defense? Shouldn't they wait until they have all their 'ducks in a row' before appearing in court? Or is it a case of "Hey, we're flimsy in our prosecution over here but maybe we'll get lucky. Plus, people will see we're doing SOMETHING, right?"
The problem with the justice system is that it isn't fair: regardless of R. Kelly being guilty or not, he got acquitted because he could best prove his side of the story. Period. If he'd been broke-ass Joe Schmo with an over-worked lawyer with no time/funds to mount a solid defense, he'd be going up the river. So, basically it doesn't matter whether someone committed a crime or not, it's all about who can best prove their argument. And that should be unacceptable. All things being equal, the righteous should prevail whether they are represented by a $1000/hr hotshot or a legal aid attorney. And the guilty should be convicted regardless of who's on their legal team. But for that to happen the prosecution has to be completely on the up and up. That means having their shit together, not looking weak and amateurish when they face a a celebrity with a legal 'dream team' or running over the defendant who can barely afford to go to court. Until that day...
Finally! A screencap. Hosted at timeinc.net, even.
via.