Thankfully, the trial of Robert Kelly is over, and the verdict probably didn’t satisfy anyone, except Kelly and his lawyers. Kelly faced up to 15 years in prison for allegedly having sex with an underage girl. He allegedly videotaped the encounter, and th
The alleged victim also denied that it was her on the tape. That meant that the prosecution’s biggest task was to convince a jury that it was indeed Kelly on the tape, and that it was indeed the alleged victim. Without that, there could be no crime, and no conviction. However, just because a jury of his peers decided that Kelly was not guilty does not mean that he was innocent.
Several of the jurors were convinced that it was Kelly on the tape, having sex with a young woman, and at one point, urinating on her. They just did not believe that the prosecution proved its case.
The most explosive witness, Lisa Van Allen, who surfaced to say that she had engaged in sexual threesomes with Kelly and the young girl, waited six years to tell her tale, and stole Kelly’s $20,000 watch, and may have tried to extort Kelly; and her fiancΘ surprisingly saw felony charges dropped against him in Atlanta at the same time she agreed to come forward in Chicago. And she was the blockbuster witness!
No wonder the jury couldn’t wait to get home%uFFFD to shower. I didn’t hear all of the evidence, though I read news reports (especially our own) about the trial. I’m not surprised that he was acquitted, but I am 100 percent sure he did it. But now that the trial is over, several questions remain.
First of all, why did this case come to trial at all? With no victim to testify, or even admit she was a victim, and no clear-cut evidence that it was Kelly on the tape, and after six years, why try to prosecute a case that was based on so little evidence? Prosecutors were left to rely upon the statements from some of the alleged victims family, who were basically calling the young girl, and her parents and other family members, liars.
The prosecutors pressed on, even when the alleged victim said it wasn’t her, and when they couldn’t prove it was Kelly on the tape. Was it Kelly’s celebrity that made the difference? Were we subjected to the spectacle, and expense, of a month-long trial because prosecutors wanted to make an example of R. Kelly, a man who parades his sexuality through his music and who calls himself the “Pied Piper of R&B?”
If so, that is a terrible reason to go to trial, because you are famous. There is another question, of course? Was Kelly in court because he is Black? It is not usually difficult to get a conviction against a Black defendant in Illinois courts. We’ve seen too many innocent men released from prison because they were convicted on erroneous evidence. Prosecutors may have felt that they liked their chances, even with little evidence. When Black men go to court, even when they are innocent, the odds are always stacked against them.
The prosecution may have just been playing the odds. I am also left with the question of what if the alleged victim in this case had been white? I doubt that it would have taken six years to get to trial. Finally, the prosecution was not able to introduce testimony about Kelly’s unsavory past, and all of the previous reports of him having sex with underage women, even marrying the late singer Aaliyah when she was 15!
Prior bad acts may not have been admissible in the courtroom, but the body of evidence confirming that Kelly is a sexual predator who takes advantage of underage girls is overwhelming. Though supporters cheered the verdict%uFFFD and Kelly%uFFFDlast week, there is no reason to cheer. Nothing on that tape is reason for cheers.
Nothing that was said in that courtroom was cause for any celebration. We watched a Black family disintegrate, Black women victimized, and a Black celebrity defended%uFFFDnot because he was not a sleaze ball, but because he was a celebrity sleaze ball. The hope here is that Kelly will seek help. It probably won’t happen. He’s the kind of celebrity who won’t understand the word “no” until a prison guard delivers it. Even then, it will probably bring more sales for his albums.
______ Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. á
About Post Author
