If the Mole Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit


Wow, that is one kick-ass legal team. Jurassic Park? The video may have been staged, with models looking like R Kelly and the victim, maybe as a form of blackmail? Computer morphing of the images in the video? That’s a plot right out of Bret Easton Ellis’ Glamorama, which deals extensively with plots involving videos of body doubles doing compromising things in order to set up the innocent, computer altered imagery, etc. Maybe the defense team read the book?

R. Kelly Is Acquitted in Child Pornography Case

Mr. Kelly’s lawyers, who included Edward Genson, Sam Adam and his son, Sam Adam Jr., filed so many motions that they helped delay the start of the trial for six years.

Flailing his arms, he suggested not one but many alternate narratives: that the mole on the back of the man in the film didn’t exist, was a computer blip or was inserted by an unknown someone for nefarious purposes; that the film itself was a fake; that it had computer morphing in it like the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park”; or that it starred models or prostitutes who looked like Mr. Kelly and his alleged victim.

….

Leonard Cavise, a professor of law at DePaul University who was skeptical of the prosecutors’ case, said the optimistic way to look at the verdict was that “this is a victory for the concept of reasonable doubt.” The jury, he said, “is saying, ‘We weren’t totally sure it was the girl, we weren’t totally sure it was him.’ ”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: