Well, folks, just when you thought all hope was not lost–R.Kelly was acquitted today of all 14 counts of child pornography. This occured eventhough during the trial (this is 6 years after charges were filed, of course) there were numerous witnesses (22, to be exact) called by the prosecution that identified the now 23 year old “alleged” victim as the female in the video, then 13 years of age. The defense had 12 witnesses that could not confirm the young woman as the child in the video(s).
Even after the countless testimonies for the prosecution and the defense, one of the key witnesses, Lisa Van Allen, was not able to score the guilty verdict for the prosecution. But she was a prosecutors dream, though. She indentified the young girl, swapped stories for the sake of the conviction..she was on her game. Kelly, Van Allen and the then 13 year old girl (who was previously identified a few years ago as Sparkle’s [another one of Kelly's former R&B proteges] niece) had done threesomes and various sex acts, all on tape. One act, in particular, occured on a basketball court. Is it my imagination or didn’t R. Kelly have some sort of basketball theme or cameo in a few of his videos some time ago??? Might be my imagination, who knows…anyway…
The the entire verdict rested on the ‘mole defense’. There was talk, on and on and on, about R.Kelly’s mole. R.Kelly has a mole on his back so he’s innocent. I can’t see a mole on the back of this man–who looks like Kelly’s identical twin–in this blurry video so he must be innocent. That’s not a mole, that’s a shadow–so he’s innocent…the defense was working the hell outta that mole defense. of course, they also had the all too expected PhotoShop Defense. That’s not them somebody photoshopped their heads….and through some space age technology made that little girl’s photoshopped head look like she was sucking the heck outta his….anyway…
My thing is, if his attorneys were so confident in this mole defense, why didnt they do the Michael Jackson and get pictures of his back taken and submitted in court? let’s flashback to the Michael Jackson case, the little boy(s) describes the ‘King of Pop’s’ penis and all of its “unusual markings” and the attorneys waste no time getting that little pop ying yang photgraphed and documented as exhibit A. So why not do the same in this case if you’re so confident in your defense? I mean MJ’s dingaling did have those markings and he still got off (no pun intended). Then–if you are so sure about this mole defense, why even go into the it wasnt him it was PhotoShop! scenerio? Hmm, if you argue that RKelly’s head (and the rest of the studio in his house!) could be photoshopped into a video, then one could argue the mole could be photoshopped off. Plus, who’s to say in these past 6 years RKelly’s attorbeys didnt advise him to either get some mark put on his body (people have done dumber things to get out of trial) or get something taken off?
How hard is this folks? He married his 15 year old protege, Aaliyah–but her mama wasnt playin’ and had that thing annulled with the quickness. The then 13 year old girl was ID’ed by her AUNT, Sparkle–another RKelly protege. And as unique as RKelly’s studio was in that house—how could that scene be replicated with such detail? here’s what’s even more funny, the then 13 year old girl used to be in a group, as a preteen…guess who was the group’s mentor?
