R. Kelly Hinging Freedom On A Mole
R Kelly (center)
Despite the fact several people who know singer R. Kelly have positively identified him as the man on a tape having sex with a 13-year-old girl, in a sauna that looks just like the one in his house he sold a few years ago, he is hinging his freedom on a mole. No, not a spy – an actual mole.
His defense lawyer stated the man who appears in the pornographic video, engaging in sex with a 13-year-old minor, does not have a mole and R. Kelly does.
Um, I don’t know if you know, but moles can be removed and they sometimes grow back.
You don’t even have to go to the doctor. Walgreens pharmacy sells products that remove moles via a solution left on the skin each night for several days…but the moles can come back.
You can also have them lasered off by a dermatologist (it is recommended that you have certain types of moles tested by a doctor to screen for cancer)…but once again, they can come back. Look it up.
How do we know he didn’t have the mole removed and it grew back, which has happened to many people?
How do we know that the camera’s lens just wasn’t strong enough to pick up the mole? Said tape couldn’t have been filmed using Panaflex or Arriflex. The more expensive the camera, the stronger the lens and greater the definition. Additionally, HD just came out the other day.
Have you ever looked at yourself in video cameras in electronics stores. They aren’t exactly high definition, especially the ones that were out when this video is said to have been made.
The video in question is said to have been shot by an amateur, R Kelly. Therefore, attention to detail in filming most likely was not a priority. Jerry Bruckheimer didn’t shoot this thing (because then the sauna would just blow up for no reason).
Therefore, a mole is not reasonable doubt. (That’s how you do reasonable doubt, Mr. Defense Lawyer man).
Oh he’s guilty. Anybody that would wear that outfit is guilty.
Seriously, if I were the prosecutor I would keep harping on the fact that Mr. Kelly illegally married a 15-year-old singer behind her parents back, willfully misrepresenting to the State that she was an adult. That’s a matter of court record.
Are they going to call Aaliyah “a prostitute” like they did the 13-year-old on the tape? Not unless they want the public to rip them to pieces.
She wasn’t. She was a young girl that was naïve like most girls her age. She was taken advantage of by someone almost twice her age.
Is it so difficult to believe that a man that was illegally married to a 15-year-old for a year when he was 27-years-old, would have sex with a minor. Is it so difficult to believe that a man that was sued by another woman for filming the two of them having sex and passing the video around to his friends, would film himself having sex? Put the two priors together and it shows a pattern of conduct.
R. Kelly — Mole Will Keep Me Outta the Hole
Could a skin doc end up saving R. Kelly’s hide? Looks like it, since his lawyers are basing pretty much his entire defense on one mole – the dark, irregularly-bordered kind.
The defense claims that the guy in the video doesn’t have a mole, but Kelly does.
Maybe the most shocking moment came when the defense claimed that the woman in the tape was a prostitute: “[The alleged victim is sweet and nice,” said Kelly’s lawyer. “The woman in this tape is a prostitute.”
Story found here