And so, on with the big pop trial of the moment – and another day over there at the R Kelly trial in Chicago. He, as you all surely know by now, is accused of filming himself having sex with an underage girl. The case revolves around a video tape which shows a not entirely identifiable black man having sex, and doing other things, with a not entirely identifiable young looking girl. The prosecution claim the man in the vid is Kelly, he and his defence say otherwise.
Most of the prosecution's case so far has actually centred on the identity of the girl – crucial to the case because it needs to be shown she was underage when the video was made. The prosecution claim they know who she is, but the girl they have identified denies it is, in fact, her. But the prosecution stand by their claim, and have so far wheeled out a police officer and a school-friend of the girl in question who both agree with them.
Yesterday they brought forward another witness who also claimed that the alleged victim is the girl in the video. Audrey Hampton, a university student, said she was a childhood friend of the girl, that she played basketball with her while at school, and that she had once introduced her to Kelly at a party at a basketball court. She said that after that meeting with the R&B star, rumours later spread in the local area about the sex tape involving him and her friend. Somehow Hampton got a copy of the tape, and she told the jury that "there's no question" that the girl on the tape is her friend, who at the time would have been 13 or 14. Under cross examination Hampton admitted that she couldn't identify her friend's body as such, but said she was sure it was her because of her face, voice and mannerisms.
Hampton's mother was also questioned, because she had found her daughter's copy of the sex tape back in 2000 and, after watching bits of it, had thrown it away. I don't think the mother - Mary Kay Jerit – was especially questioned regarding the identities of the people in the video, her testimony was presumably to help date when the video came into existence, again important in ascertaining the age of the girl at the time of the recording – it fell into police hands in 2002. The fact Hampton and her mother seemingly had a copy of the tape much earlier than that but didn't alert the authorities was raised by Kelly's defence. Why, if they believed they had in their hands what amounted to child pornography, did they not hand it in to the police? The witnesses didn't really have an answer.
The case continues. Meanwhile, there was a dramatic side show to the proceedings yesterday when one Kelly fan lost control in the court house and screamed "free R Kelly" at the jury as they made their way to the court room. The fan, one Debra Triplet, was quickly led away by police and was later held as being in contempt of court and freed on a $50,000 bond. The judge, Vincent Gaughan, asked the jury whether they had heard what Triplet had screamed. They said not. Though quite how the screamings of a mad R Kelly fan could influence the jury one way or the other anyway, I'm not sure.