Thoughts of OJ...

Unfortunately was deeper than it looks. The girl on the tape denies that it is her, and the 3rd person in the tape is a total sketch. She only came forward to testify once someone promised her that her boyfriend would get off on weapons charges. There were a lot of holes in the allegations of the "witnesses" and this seriously hurt the prosecution. If they had just let the tape speak for itself and have the minor on the stand, he might be in prison.

Also, it should be noted, this is a guy with limitless finances in a case against someone who does not have much. I am not speculating, but I don't think that it is outside the realm of possibility that someone (maybe not Kelly himself, but maybe a posse member) paid the girl off to say it wasn't her in the film.

But really, anything is possible...

"The girl on the tape denies that it is her"

So we all agree it's a minor on the tape, the same one the prosecutor's had testify.

"this is a guy with limitless finances in a case against someone who does not have much"

That would be the prosecutor's office, which, last I checked, doesn't typically lack for resources when it wants to get a conviction.

Let's not make this any more complicated than it is. They have a videotape of the guy having sex with a little girl. Seems like the prosecutor gets up, makes that statement, runs the tape, rests his case, and he should have a conviction. That the jury chose to acquit is troubling in the extreme.

If it isn't the girl they think on the tape, how do they prove her age? Some people look young for their age. Unless they could prove it to be someone and then prove that person's age - is there any way to definitively say that that is a minor on the tape?

And in the financial side of things, I meant the girl who could be testifying agains R. Kelly, but instead is denying her involvement.

NOTE - I mistakenly posted this reply as a separate blog entry earlier today. My apologies for the confusion.
=========================================

Chris,

Yes, the problems with the case certainly did not help, and I share your skepticism on whether there may be some money that changed hands to "persuade" the victim to clam up and deny any involvement. Still seems like a colossally bad job by the prosecutors and/or jurors, however. I read somewhere that the defense attorneys argued that the whole things was a plot to extort Kelly. Something tells me the police never got very far in looking into those potential charges, largely because they are a pile of BS. The whole thing just reeks.

Sorry about your Mets and Willie's firing. I'll have to stop by your Place and get your thoughts on it.