I can't help thinking that the prosecutors in the R Kelly trial might have peaked early on in their case against the R&B star – certainly in terms of entertainment value.
The long awaited trial against Kelly, who is accused of filming himself having sex with an underage girl, kicked off in Chicago yesterday and, with opening remarks delivered, lawyers for the prosecution quickly wheeled in their TV sets and aired the video around which the case centres, promising the jury footage of Kelly performing "vile, disturbing and disgusting sex acts" with an underage girl. "You will see the sex acts he commands her to do", prosecutor Shauna Boliker said, "acts you have never seen before. Vile, disturbing and disgusting sex acts, actions that were choreographed, produced and starred in by Robert Kelly".
We're far too easily shocked to even consider watching this kind of filth ourselves, but fortunately a chap at the Associated Press did it for us. He reports that it lasts for about 27 minutes and features a man having sex with a young female who is naked for most of the film except for a cross on a chain around her neck. It starts with the man – who is not immediately identifiable – giving the girl money, who says "thank you". The camera then focuses on her dancing to songs by the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys – urinating on the floor as she goes, like you do – before the man reappears on screen to have sex with her. Towards the end of the video he urinates on her.
According to reports, both jurors and Kelly himself watched intently as they saw the video. Boliker claims the prosecution have identified the girl in it, and claim that she could have been as young as 13 when it was filmed – she is currently 23 and the prosecution reckon the video was taped at some point between 1 Jan 1998 and 1 Nov 2000.
But Kelly, who faces 15 years in jail if found guilty of the charges against him, continues to proclaim his innocence. At the crux of the defence's case, which kicked off immediately after Boliker had completed her opening, is the authenticity of the tape, which showed up at the offices of the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper back in 2002. That the tape exists and shows two people having sex is undeniable, but defence attorney Sam Adam Jr told the jury that the man in the video is not his client. Pacing around the court room, he told the jury: "You know what they have to connect Mr Kelly to this tape? [dramatic pause] Nothing". He added that an FBI investigation into the tape had failed to conclusively identify the man in it, and then showed a photo of Kelly's back, complete with a small mole, which, he said, could not be seen on the back of the man in the vid.
He also threw doubt on the prosecution's claims as to who the girl in the video was, her identity being important, of course, so that it can be ascertained for certain what her age was when the thing was filmed. The defence's claims that the 23 year old girl the prosecution have lined up is not actually the girl in the video is aided by the fact the 23 year old girl the prosecution have lined up also denies it is her. The defence argue that the girl must, in fact, be a prostitute because the man is seen paying her at the outset.
The identity of the girl also came up after the video had been shown when the prosecution brought forward their first witness - Chicago police investigator Dan Everett, who was called to the Sun-Times offices in February 2002 when the video first surfaced. He described what he and his colleague saw in the video, and then claimed that they immediately knew who the girl was in the video, and that she was underage, because they had interviewed her as "part of an earlier investigation". That last remark pissed off the judge somewhat because he had instructed Boliker and Everett that the word "investigation" must not be used in relation to the police man's previous contact with the alleged girl in the video. Quite how Everett had come to previously question the alleged girl, and why the circumstances should not be considered to be an "investigation", wasn't really explained.
And that was it for day one. The case continues.