Militant Ginger: Legal Genius?

A few weeks ago, I blogged about the case the Chicago District Attorney brought against popular rapper R Kelly - alleging he made a pornographic movie of him having sex with an underage girl.

My problem with this case? It was absent of any form of convincing evidence whatsoever. The case for the prosecution hung off a grainy VHS tape showing one man, who's face is never seen, having intimate relations with a young woman, who you apparently can't identify (and doesn't look underage.)

After seeing R Kelly's distinctive mole, which proved conclusively that he wasn't the man in the video, the jury took less than a day to come back with a unanimous verdict. R Kelly was cleared.

Witnesses also indicated that the girl in the video wasn't the (then) minor Kelly was accused of sleeping with (who is in her twenties now and vehemently denies being involved.)

The question still remains - if R Kelly was so clearly innocent, why did the Chicago District attorney's office spend six whole years building this case against him? How much did it cost? Aren't there real criminals they could be chasing (like Chicago slum lord - and friend of Barack Obama - Tony Rezko.)

At least it proved one important thing - that even against the overwhelming might of the Chicago District Attorney's Office, America is still a country in which you can get a fair trial.