This is just terribly disappointing. R Kelly was pretty convincingly acquitted of 14 charges of having sexual relations with a miner minor and making them into a nasty little video. Thankfully, his Jackie Chiles defence ran very similar lines to those of OJ Simpson’s, which means there should be no reason whatsoever why we can’t all carry on slagging him off. Shit, his music alone gives us just cause.
To get him off the hook, his attorneys focused their efforts on creating reasonable doubt surrounding the production of the video and stirred up a lot of conspiracy bollocks to swamp the issue further. Much of the meat turned on whether the beasts with the two backs in question were in fact R or his apparently feisty target.
Fortunately, the conspirators made a mistake. They forgot one little detail. A birthmark on R Kelly’s back which the defence claimed was not visible in the video.
For days, forensic video experts on both sides argued about the missing mole. Was it there? Wasn’t it there?
They even argued about who had the superior equipment.
Then there was the mullet. A hairstyle said to have been worn by the victim when she was 13 or 14.
Every witness who took the stand to identify her was quizzed on their knowledge of women’s fashion as they were asked, “What’s the difference between a bob and a mullet? Is the parting on the left, or the centre?”
Birthmarks and mullets? Seriously? Jeez, people get pernickity about this stuff. R should have been charged with 14 extra charges of poking someone with a mullet, a crime punishable by acid-towel whipping and public castration in most civilised jurisdictions. To be honest, a bob is just as sinful and tasteless.
R’s lawyers managed to heap on the crazy big time. Thankfully they managed to steer clear of the slightly overused but brutally devastating Chewbacca defence, although their tactics were clearly devised with Johnny Cochran in mind. Epic.
For the defence, it was all about performance. Sam Adam Jr strode around the courtroom, executed dramatic turns, shouted, whispered.
He even quoted from the bible, twice.
“Second Corinthians 11, verse 14. And Satan shall come disguised as an angel of light.”
His wrath in that instance was directed at Lisa Van Allen (R’s ex-manager who said she’s tucked in on some of the paedo action a few times).
He also spoke of his pride at working with R Kelly’s lawyer Sam Adam Sr and head lawyer Ed Genson, “My two dads”.
And then there was his plea to the jury not to find R Kelly guilty because that would mean calling the girl “a whore, 14 times”.
In the end, R Kelly’s acquittal probably had little to do with the more elaborate elements of the defence.
I thought Sam Adam was a beer? Anyhoo. Corinthians, whores, threeways with Satan: gosh, it’s fantastic. Plenty of movie happiness to be had here! I’m thinking Michael Clarke Duncan as R and that tot off Little Miss Sunshine as the young ‘un. Ooooh, that would get tongues wagging. They could toss off in Dakota Fanning for extra heat. Next to Hostel, we could be talking about the best date movie ever made!
Aah, well. R Kelly may be off the hook for now, but the humour will never die. And if his music career wasn’t so grossly offensive to my tastes, I’d probably be happy to leave him be. But it is, so I won’t.
We won’t have to wait too much longer for more entertainment, mind you:
As a bizarre footnote, R Kelly may be returning to Cook County Courthouse again soon. He is being sued by a man called Uncle Henry Love, who claims the singer stole his dance moves.
Round 2. Fight!