Mike Riggs | June 5, 2008
It seems the purported victim's family in the R. Kelly sex tape case is having difficulty doing what Jimi Hendrix and Meg White fans were able to do in only a few hours: determining whether or not they know the person in the sex video.
Lead attorney Edward Genson starts things off by calling a cousin, an aunt, and an uncle of the alleged victim, all of whom declare unequivocally that their relative is not Sex-Tape Girl. (All three also acknowledge that they hadn't seen the video until this week—a reminder of the many prosecution witnesses who, the defense has argued, were certain that the alleged victim was on the tape before ever having seen it.) Charlotte Edwards, the girl's aunt, says that the young woman in the video has much larger breasts than the alleged victim. Genson, perhaps rusty when it comes to questioning nonhostile witnesses, follows up by asking Charlotte if she'd ever seen her niece naked—the same question he used to undermine witnesses who claimed they were 100 percent sure they could identify the girl. Charlotte, unperturbed or unaware of Genson's mistake, responds straight-facedly that she had indeed seen her relative's nude torso, "when I used to change her diapers."
In contrast to Genson, state's attorney Shauna Boliker performs flawlessly. After a few perfunctory questions to the day's first witness, the alleged victim's cousin Shonna Edwards, she begins the show-and-tell portion of the cross-examination. On a giant screen 10 feet from the jury box, the state displays a screenshot from a video put out by the alleged victim's music group. Shonna identifies her cousin and band mate immediately. A few seconds later, we see a still from the 27-minute sex tape—if memory serves, it's taken from the very beginning, as Sex-Tape Girl is about to receive a handful of bills from Sex-Tape Man. Shonna says that she doesn't recognize that person. Boliker then has the photos displayed side by side. Both are profile shots, showing the left side of the alleged victim's face, her mullet, and a slightly puffy cheek. They look the same. "Is it possible that it could be the same individual?" Boliker asks. "Not at all," Shonna says. Boliker doesn't accuse her of lying or covering for her kin. She asks no further questions, eager to get the next witness on the stand—another opportunity to put the pair of poster-sized photos in front of the jury.
Granted, there's a lot at stake if one of the actors is indeed underage, but what's the hold-up in identification? Seems like the gist of the case—the accusation of child pornography—is getting lost in the maze that is Kelly's extensive list of associates.
For more on Kelly's history of doing things that everybody disapproves of, click here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Charlotte Edwards, the girl's aunt, says that the young
woman in the video has much larger breasts than the alleged
victim
Clearly, this case calls for a line-up.
WOW... nice baby :)
I've found R. Kelly Sex Tape '09 for FREE
> > > http://view-rkelly-tape.blogspot.com
good quality...
The most suprising part of the trail was when Jay Z stood up and
yelled "I thought this was America people! Uhh, yeah, guilty until
proven innocent huh? That's how we workin huh? Okay before me there
was many; after me there will be none
I am the one
Uh-huh, okay, I see how we playin"
Both are profile shots, showing the left side of the alleged
victim's face, her mullet, and a slightly puffy
cheek.
If watching Cops has taught me anything, it's that if
there's a mullet involved, someone is guilty of something.
Yeah, everyone complains of black and Muslim profiling,
but when you see a mullet you know it's up to no good.
Am I the only one who just doesn't give a ****?
I mean, if it had been a little kid 10 or whateve then I'd have
some sympathy and think it's a matter for law enforcement but as it
stands it's just another teen having sex. Teens (male & female)
have sex. Deal with it. They do it with whoever they can for
reasons (money, status) or no reason (they like it). Don't believe
me? Look at all the stories of teens or even jr. high kids taking
nude photos and photos of sex acts of THEMSELVES on their cell
phones and sharing them.
I think the old fogeys really need to get over the whole "OMG!
Teens can't have sex!" thing because uh . . . the teens have for
several generations now.
popularity of the search term "meg white sex
tape"
For when you can't just go to a bar to bang an unattractive skank?
She does have great jugs, I'll giver her that.
Yeah, everyone complains of black and Muslim
profiling,
but when you see a mullet you know it's up to no good.
You can't choose your race. Most people don't choose their
religions. But if you choose a mullet (which transcends race and
creed), it shows a profound lack of judgment and intelligence.
I think the old fogeys really need to get over the whole
"OMG! Teens can't have sex!" thing because uh . . . the teens have
for several generations now.
As an "old fogey" I'll agree that's true, if by "several
generations" you mean "since we lived in caves."
My local high school here in small-town Texas has a day care
center, and it isn't primarily for teachers.
You can't choose your race. Most people don't choose their
religions. But if you choose a mullet (which transcends race and
creed), it shows a profound lack of judgment and
intelligence.
Unless you find yourself in a time-warp to the late '80s/early '90s
and working for the Phoenix Foundation. Then it's the height of
manliness and cool.
ktc2,
No, I don't give a ____ either. Couldn't agree with you more. I
really can't get worked up about who a 16 year old has sex with. I
think it is ridiculous to call something like this tape "child
porn".
That chick's family has been paid well to keep their mouths shut
and deny, deny, deny.
The girl was 13 in the video. It's not like she was 17 or 18. If
you all don't care so much about 13 year old girls getting rooted
and pissed on by a trashy man who's much older than them, then send
your daughters and little sisters to old Bubba down the road from
me. I'm sure he'd be glad to get them and would know just what to
do with them.
Unless said person also has on a hat and wearin' a wifebeater
with a cigarette dangling from the alleged perpetrator's mouth,
sporting a mullet proves nothing.
Disclosure: I live in Mississippi and mullets are fairly common
here.
I suppose I can understand having a mullet if you live somewhere (such as Mississippi) that they are not out of the ordinary. But when I see one in Connecticut, I can't believe the lack of sense of the wearer, as they are extremely rare and are like a huge fucking neon sign over your head that says "WHITE FUCKING TRASH WALKING".
What the hell is wrong with you people? Every famous nigga that
gets arrested is not Nelson Mandela! Yes, the government conspires
to put a lot of innocent black men in jail on fallacious charges.
But R. Kelly is not one of those men! We all know
the nigga can sing, but what happened to standards? What happened
to bare minimums? Are you a fan of R. Kelly? You wanna help R.
Kelly? Get some counseling for R. Kelly! Introduce him to some
older women! Hide his camcorder! But don't pretend that the man is
a hero!
And stop the damn dancing! Act like you've got some goddamn sense,
people! Damn! I'm through playing around here!
Episiarch,
Actually the most mullets I have ever seen sported was in
Palmdale/Lancaster about an hour and a half outside LA. It was
mulletopia out there.
It might be bad to say, but teenage star-fuckers are the least
sympathetic "victims" to me.
Apparently though, Kelly has a history of this type of behavior. At
least in one story I read in the Chicago Sun Times, a few girls
have come forward claiming they had sex with him and were promised
recording contracts or jobs in the business that never
happened.
The article seemed to imply that many of them seemed to have been
paid off once they realized the promises were broken.
To me the most offensive part is Mr. Kelly's lack of judgment.
There is too much smoke surrounding this guy for there not to be a
fire somewhere. The dude likes the youngsters.
Disclosure: I live in Mississippi and mullets are fairly common here.
But... nevermind.
I'm not an R. Kelly fan, by any means. I don't like that kind of
"music" at all. To be clear I don't like him or his music.
However, I don't believe teenagers should be lumped in with "child
porn".
I know a lot of people (myself included) who were having sex at
that age and don't regret it.
a few girls have come forward claiming they had sex with him
and were promised recording contracts or jobs in the business that
never happened.
If we locked up every guy who promised jobs or recording contracts
in exchange for sex, there wouldn't be any men left in show
business.
He videotaped himself pissing on a 14 year old. Maybe Mary Ruwart finds that acceptable, but I'm surprised many other people do.
I suppose I can understand having a mullet if you live
somewhere (such as Mississippi) that they are not out of the
ordinary.
I don't want to hear any of that cultural relativism BS -- mullets
are just plain morally wrong everywhere. :)
mullets are just plain morally wrong everywhere
I was trying to be nice. Mullets are a fucking travesty. If I see
someone wearing one, I instantly know that at the very least they
have zero taste. They may also be an idiot and are probably really
really annoying.
My nephew in Norway has a mullet. They're all the rage for the teenage emo crowd over there. I am relentless with him about it.
Whoa, Episiarch. Whats with you and mullets? Sounds like there are some deep rooted problems there with . . . um . . . mullets.
Is there any evidence that he knew how old this girl was? Many 14 year old girls, and particularly 14 year old African American girls, can easily pass for 19 or 20. I think we'd need to see a picture of this girl before you can make any judgments about the merits of the case. If R. Kelly is in the habit of making love and pissing on girls in their early 20's, and this girl looked indistinguishable for the rest, I can't see any moral crime involved, even if you accept age of consent laws.
I present to all of you the infamous, wonderful, brilliant schizophrenic Wesley Willis ... with CUT THE MULLET!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roxMH07qHmc
Sadly the age of consent laws enforce strict liability to the point that even if they look old enough, and presented you with damn good quality fake ID saying they were old enough you're still going to jail. I believe in some states the laws are so strongly worded even if they held you at gun point tied you up and raped you, you would still be the one going to jail.
The adult must be the one who takes control of the situation and
assumes responsibility for his actions. The adult is in charge, not
the child.
Besides, R Kelly has a rep for liking the young ones. He doesn't
want them if they look old enough, so I doubt she was looking any
older than her age.
Note to R. Kelly: Try placing a CHEERIO in the toliet bowl and
practice, practice, practice.
Another note to R. Kelly: WE KNOW HOW YOU DO!
Note to SELF: Get a life and stop wasting your time commenting on
useless pedophiles and rapists.
sha-asia...I beg to differ with you. R kelly had a LOT against
this girl and God knows where else...lol...that is why he is deep
poop.
What planet are you from?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245