Why was R Kelly acquitted, not guilty??!?!?!?!?

The girl and her family vehemently denied everything and didn't want to testify. The evidence was inconclusive because the man on the video could not difinitively be proven to be r kelly. The jury couldn't prove without a reasonable doubt that he was the man within the tape. Money, he has lots of money.
Well i have the cassette..&&& that for CERTAIN is him. But the evidence in the case didn't prove that it was him nor a beneath age girl. The key to the case (the girl) denied it was her. The evidence they have was whack. && the jury also has to consider that he has money && the dozen of witnesses' they pulled might be trying to capture him for his money. It was a 50-50 but that definately him no doubt. But he beat the law- && withdrawal of evidence set him free..

IF they did convict him guilty- they wouldn't have charged him with child pornography--cause theres no way of knowing she 13 years matured.

& u know he did it because he got caught on FLORIDA with a sex tape surrounded by his home again--and they believed it was a underage girl..but since the police didnt have a proper search warrant those counts be dropped..
the prosecution couldn't convince 12 those too stupid to get out of jury duty, that the man on the tape was R. Kelly.
Well the "victim" didnt say it be her and a few family members said they didnt recognize.....

But after again, the man is rich and a few million goes a long way to keep ones mouth shut...
Just remember, not guilty does not equate to "he did not do it." It just means that the prosecution was not sufficiently expert to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people.