Do you think the jurors had th right verdict for R. Kelly?

Question

Robert Kelly has been found NOT GUILTY on all 14 counts of child pornography. If he was convicted he could have faced up to 15 years behind bars.

Answer 1

Not guilty DOES mean that he did not do it, it means he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, in a court of law, not in a court of public opinion.

Answer 2

Just remember, not guilty does not equate to "he did not do it." It just means that the prosecution was unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people.

Answer 3

"On one side, you've got a 27-minute s*x tape. This tape shows a man who looks like R. Kelly giving money to, having s*x with, and urinating on someone who looks like his goddaughter, a girl who would've been around 14 at the time. All of this takes place in a log-cabin-style sauna room that looks exactly like R. Kelly's log-cabin-style sauna room.

On the other side, you've got the Shaggy defense (It wasn't me!), the Little Man defense (It's my head on some other dude's body!), the Sparkle defense (I was framed by a bunch of money-grubbing lowlifes!), and the "ghost s*x" defense (I'm actually not sure what the point of this one was, but there were headless people having s*x and it was weird and creepy). "

"... the state's attorneys might have swayed the jury if Judge Vincent Gaughan had allowed them to present evidence of Kelly's past transgressions, like the four known settlements he's paid to underage girls who've accused him of sexual misconduct. Once you know all of that stuff, it's somewhat hard to imagine that R. Kelly didn't tape himself having s*x with an underage girl. If, like the jury, you don't know the singer's history, there's a lot more room for doubt."

http://www.slate.com/id/2193649/entry/21...