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.

Law & Disorder

Having watched many episodes of Law & Order, I understand Detective Logan and Briscoe's frustration when District Attorney Jack McCoy tells them they don't have enough evidence to drag a suspect into court.

But there are cases in which life doesn't imitate art, such as wildly popular rapper R Kelly finding himself in court on 14 charges of producing child pornography - which could land him prison for 15 years.

If he's guilty of those vile charges, he's getting off lucky with a decade and a half behind bars.

But the case isn't exactly watertight. Law and Order's Jack McCoy would never approve.

The primary evidence is a grainy video-tape, supposedly filmed in the late nineties and showing R Kelly having sexual relationships with a 13 year old girl (who's now in her twenties.)

The problem? R Kelly's lawyers say it's not even him in the video - the subject's face is never clearly seen and there's a suspicious mole on his back that R Kelly says proves it's not him.

Even worse for the Chicago District Attorney's office, the alleged victim refuses to testify against R Kelly and likewise denies that it's her in the videotape.

This leaves the question - who are the stars? And if they're not Kelly and his 'victim,' what's this tape doing as the primary piece of evidence in a child pornography trial?

There's not even any evidence that the female 'star' of the tape is underage. Concensus amongst those who've seen the tapes is that she certainly doesn't look it.

I'm not a fan of famous people getting lenient treatment for their crimes - but I'm also not a fan of famous people getting dragged onto court with less-than convincing evidence. It highlights serious lapses of judgement within the American legal system.

The Chicago District Attorney have a spotlight on them at the moment. They need to respond by putting together an utterly convincing case based on firm evidence. So far, they've failed miserably.