Greg / June 13, 2008 4:21 PM

I think that between R. and the creepshow that is apparently the entire nation of Austria, I look forward to once more being able to take a few seconds' peek at a credible news site during the workday and not feel like I'm setting off the IT pr0n alarms.

David / June 13, 2008 4:26 PM

It was a weak case to start with, and the fact that the trial took six years to schedule and a week to present and only seven hours to deliberate, should speak for itself.

That said, it's the finest justice money can buy.

Carrie / June 13, 2008 4:58 PM

I'm not surprised. I am surprised that it took the jury less than a day to deliberate. I feel like they maybe didn't take it seriously... probably because they knew that even if they returned a guilty verdict that he'd find a loophole and get off.

Chris / June 13, 2008 9:07 PM

It always surprises me when an event like this happens, and people treat it as if it is important.

ChicagoHotBlog.com

Mikey / June 13, 2008 11:30 PM

So apparently now video evidence isn't even enough to convict criminals (assuming you're a celebrity who can afford high-powered attorneys). Awesome...

okno / June 14, 2008 11:50 AM

i happen to know he's guilty, because i know some one who witnessed r kelley bringing underage girls to his studio for sex on a regular basis. it's disturbing to me that anyone is taking this lightly, because we are talking about the sexual abuse and exploitation of young girls. it's one thing that it was impossible to prove in court--this does not mean it didn't happen. it did, he got away with it, and we should be angry.

Staci / June 15, 2008 1:16 PM

I am extremely saddened and angered by this. I can't believe his fans are so happy their hero got off. It's time to look past the superstar and realize this is a person who did some serious wrong.

Spook / June 16, 2008 10:32 AM

I am also extremely saddened and angered by this. I was hoping against hope that he would be convicted.

Then to see so many cheering women, clearly poor from low income communities.

I'm getting sorta numb, which is why I want out of this town in a few years.

p.s and of course there has been no moral outrage from Jesse Jackson on down to NOW.

c / June 16, 2008 10:54 AM

CGI!!!

Mucky Fingers / June 16, 2008 11:01 AM

I could care less, as there are far greater crimes than that of a pop star banging an underage groupie.

There are lots of other events and situations that people should be "angry" about.

hop / June 16, 2008 11:20 AM

From what I heard the prosecution's case wasn't so airtight and the female star witness was allegedly taken to task during the cross examination. Take into account the fact that it's R. Kelly and his team of expensive lawyers and the fact that they were able to hold off for six years, and I think it's unsurprising.

That being said, the jury didn't get to hear anything about his brief marriage to a then 15 year old Aaliyah or the alleged (couldn't find a link, based on hearsay which is always reliable) restraining order that was placed on R. Kelly by a Chicago Public School because he was successfully trolling the grounds for more girls...

flange / June 16, 2008 12:28 PM

he's this generation's jerry lee lewis.

of course if he heard that his reaction would probably be "who?"

anyway, a city that re-elects daley not only regularly but overwhelmingly is hardly concerned with any kind of corruption. so i'm not sure why there's any surprise here.

r / June 16, 2008 12:47 PM

I got a special chuckle out of the fact that he ate at Grand Lux Cafe after the acquittal. How tacky.

C-Note / June 16, 2008 4:02 PM

Actually, despite what your double hearsay as to possible other cases has to say about the case at hand, okno, the jury decides the issue of guilt, not you (i.e., even if you saw him do it, he's not guilty). And the jury said he wasn't guilty.

Besides that, I think the case highlights some interesting things about our society; in particular, (1) our willingness to let law determine what's morally acceptable, but more interesting, (2) that the state can prosecute an alleged criminal without a complaining witness -- here, the alleged victim denied that the charged crime took place, and despite this, the state was able to step in and prosecute in the name of the people. And so obviously in this case, the state suffered from the fact that they couldn't even prove whether the girl in the video was a child, for the purposes of the child-pornography charge.

I happen to think that victims should determine whether someone is prosecuted, not the state's attorney. From which you can probably infer my position on victimless crime. Anyway, these things interested me.