The arguments in court may have ended, but the dispute about what the R. Kelly trial means is likely to rage for some time.
Pop critic Jim DeRogatis (who broke the story of the tape at the center of the case) and columnist Mary Mitchell have their say in today's Sun-Times.
And Bill Wyman, who has been closely following the case at his blog, Hitsville, says he always insisted you can’t go wrong betting that the rich guy gets off.
But Slate's Josh Levin thinks "it's possible that the jury would've acquitted if the defense had said absolutely nothing."
That girl on the go thinks the main difference between R. Kelly's trial and O.J. Simpson's was that the victim wasn't white.
To an outside observer looking at the case in the context of other celebrity trials, Kelly's acquittal may seem unsurprising. But it's worth noting that in a private last-minute straw poll of the 20 plus reporters in court to cover the case, not one predicted that Kelly would be completely cleared (many did predict a hung jury, however).
Whether you think this says more about the media or the jury probably depends on your own view of the verdict.
In that vein, here's one final, sad footnote: TV reporter Randi Belisomo's personal take on a small moment at the margins of the Kelly trial.