R. Kelly: The Mole, The Mullet, The Trial

R. Kelly:  The Mole, The Mullet, The Trial
R. Kelly:  The Mole, The Mullet, The TrialR. Kelly:  The Mole, The Mullet, The TrialR. Kelly:  The Mole, The Mullet, The TrialR. Kelly:  The Mole, The Mullet, The TrialR. Kelly:  The Mole, The Mullet, The Trial

Remember this swanky song from 2003, the one that mentioned the after party in the hotel lobby then “around about four you gotta clear the lobby and then take it to ya room and freak somebody”… then pee on them?? This is my own personal remix to Ignition, the tales of R. Kelly and his battle with deciding whether or not he actually urinated on a fourteen-year-old girl. Think I’m exaggerating? Wait until you hear some of the insane details of this lawsuit.

 

It all began in 2002 when music critic Jim DeRogatis was given a sex tape of an underage girl and the rapper who has been known to claim he’s “a flirt.” He paid her for head and sex and then proceeded to pee on her afterwards. Mmmm just what every budding teenager wants to experience. DeRogatis cracked the story to the Chicago Sun Times and six years later, the proceedings of a lawsuit began this past May.

 

As with anything controversial in the courtroom, there are several different stories up in the air. Both Kelly and the alleged victim of the potty-esque pornographic video escapade claim they are NOT the people in the video. The girl’s aunt, uncle and cousin are all backing her up; however, four other family members are sure it’s her, along with her best friend who has no doubts since she recognizes her friend’s, ahem, mullet. No one seems to want to help out Kelly—his former fling Stephanie “Sparkle” Edwards recognizes the girl, as does his former assistant who identifies the rapper as well as the girl, explaining that she remembered the girl doing homework and babysitting for Kelly’s kids way back when. Ew.

 

Defense attorneys apparently thought they were hot shots, using R. Kelly’s caterpillar shaped birthmark as their main evidence. They say the mole on the man’s back in the DVD keeps appearing and reappearing, clearly a sign of poor lighting and the fault of the recording equipment. They probably should have checked to make sure the DVD was the original version of the film. The evidence of the fake mole they have is only shown in two frames on the DVD. The actual, original VHS version has steady footage of the mole for 17 frames in a row. Guess they should have hired a media specialist who knew what he or she was doing to break down the frames. Seriously, a possibly hypothetical mole was their surprise evidence??

 

One more thing: the alleged victim is the daughter of Kelly’s former guitar player. She’s also his goddaughter. This rapper was right; he will probably be “running through that open door”… to prison.
 

Related Posts