R. Kelly Is A Flirt But Apparently He's Not A Child Molester

I guess they were right...if you don't see the mole, he didn't hit that baby girl's hole. Per CNN.com: "A Chicago jury has acquitted R. Kelly on all counts at his child pornography trial. Both Kelly and the now 23-year-old alleged victim had denied they were the ones appearing on the tape, which was played for the jury at the beginning and end of the trial. The prosecution's star witness was a woman who said she engaged in three-way sex with Kelly and the girl from the video. Defense attorneys argued the man on the tape didn't have a large mole on his back, as Kelly does. The jury of nine men and three women included the wife of a Baptist preacher from Kelly's Chicago-area hometown, as well as a compliance officer for a Chicago investment firm and a man in his 60s who emigrated from then-Communist Romania nearly 40 years ago. Jurors took the sex tape at the center of the trial with them, and a monitor was set up in the jury room in case they wanted to review it. At one point, Sam Adam Jr. referred to a defense argument made repeatedly during the trial that a mole on the singer's back proved he simply can't be the man in the video. After displaying a freeze frame of the man's back in the video -- with no apparent mole -- Adam walked over to the defense table and placed his hand on Kelly's shoulder. "The truth be told, there is no mole ... that means one thing," Adam told jurors, then paused and lowered his voice. "It ain't him. And if it ain't him, you can't convict." Well there you have it folks. If both R-uh and the alleged victim say it wasn't them, how can you really find him guilty?