This R Kelly child pornography trial is getting awfully confusing – one minute someone’s saying he did it, then another’s saying he didn’t.
Oh, who to believe? Well, since R Kelly’s defence began yesterday with testimonies from the accused sex tape victim’s relatives, all claiming that it wasn’t her who R Kelly was having it off with, our microscopic attention span means we’ll have to side with them.
So that’s it, R Kelly definitely didn’t have sex with the 14-year-old girl that everyone thinks he had sex with because the very few members of her family who didn’t say that R Kelly definitely did have sex with her say he didn’t. We can’t believe it was this obvious all along.
If you’ve been following the R Kelly child pornography trial so far, then a) congratulations, you’ll never be able to hear Everybody by the Backstreet Boys again without thinking of a child urinating for the sexual pleasure of a grown man, and b) you’ll have realised that everyone so far has been pretty sure that R Kelly is guilty of all the stuff he’s been accused of.
But that’s just because the prosecution has been hogging the limelight, with witnesses ranging from the alleged victim’s friends and family to R Kelly’s former employees, who all agree that R Kelly is the man in the sex tape.
And since the prosecution in the R Kelly child pornography trial rested earlier this week, it’s now time for the defence to have a bash at convincing everyone that R Kelly is guilty of nothing except making the occasional metaphor-heavy song about all the different things his cock can do.
So far it looks like the defence has an uphill task, because so far it appears that its two main arguments are that someone digitally transplanted R Kelly’s head onto someone else’s sex tape (Official FBI response: “What are you, stupid?“) and that it can’t be R Kelly in the sex tape because R Kelly has a mole on his back and the man in the tape hasn’t (Official response from everyone with eyes: “Hey geniuses, they’ve both got moles in exactly the same place”).
Chances are the defence will get to this in the coming days – but first it’s found a list of people who say that the accused victim in the sex tape isn’t who the prosecution says it is, as the Associated Press reports:
“It definitely wasn’t her,” said Shonna Edwards, when asked Wednesday whether the underage girl seen having sex with the Grammy winner on the video was her relative. The 27-year-old Edwards said she saw the tape for the first time several days ago in a lawyer’s office, telling jurors that the female’s body in the tape was too developed to be her relative at that time.
As well as Shonna Edwards, two other relatives of the accused victim denied that it was her, putting the current tally of family members who say it is her at four and isn’t her at three.
R Kelly’s defence also punctured the credibility of prosecution witness Lisa Van Allen – the woman who said that she had threesomes with R Kelly and the accused victim – with a witness who claims that she sought $300,000 from Kelly to keep quiet.
But with the R Kelly child pornography trial more than halfway over, what have we learnt so far? Well, not much. Except that if you keep writing about 14-year-old girls who wet themselves at the sound of the Backstreet Boys, eventually you’ll start instinctively wetting yourself at the sound of the Backstreet Boys as well, something we learnt recently in a crowded lift where some idiot decided to use Quit Playing Games With My Heart as their ringtone.