R. Kelly may actually beat his infamous child pornography case! Yesterday, in his sex-tape trial, the defense said the man committing lude acts on tape with an underage girl could not have been Mr. Kelly (or just "R"?) because of a distinct mole on Kelly's back that was not present on the perpetrator! The New York Daily News reports:
The body of evidence in the R.Kelly kiddie-porn case could come down to this: a mole on the R&B raunchmeister's back.
During opening arguments in his sex-tape trial Tuesday, the defense said the singer couldn't possibly be the man who cavorted with a girl as young as 13.
Kelly, 41, has a "significant" mole on his lower middle back, one that's been there since childhood, said lawyer Sam Adam Jr.
And the man seen performing a variety of explicit sex acts on the raw video made between 1998 and 2000?
"There is no mole on his back," Adam told jurors in a packed Chicago courtroom.
"Robert Kelly is not on that tape. ... Not a single witness can tell you that is him on the tape.""
During opening arguments in his sex-tape trial Tuesday, the defense said the singer couldn't possibly be the man who cavorted with a girl as young as 13.
Kelly, 41, has a "significant" mole on his lower middle back, one that's been there since childhood, said lawyer Sam Adam Jr.
And the man seen performing a variety of explicit sex acts on the raw video made between 1998 and 2000?
"There is no mole on his back," Adam told jurors in a packed Chicago courtroom.
"Robert Kelly is not on that tape. ... Not a single witness can tell you that is him on the tape.""
That may be so, good defense attorney sir... but there still can't be a ruling until he tries on the bloody glove!!! Umm... sorry... I was just so caught up in the celebrity trial that I just had a flashback to about 10 years ago and it brought me right back to the heart of the O.J. trial. I know, that was uncalled for. My apologies. Back to the man who urinates on underage girls. Proceed.
