Idolator

Despite the CGI shenanigans and shady witnesses, there really isn't much for R. Kelly's jury to deliberate. "It's not a complicated case," law professor Leonard Cavise told the Chicago Sun-Times. "You either think it's her and it's him [on the tape], or you're done." The prosecution, which opened its closing arguments this morning, must convince members of the jury that they are indeed watching R. Kelly get wet and wild with an underage girl. The defense, on the other hand, has to make the jury believe that nobody knows what the hell is on the tape, or how it got there. So how do their cases stack up?

For the prosecution:

• Multiple witness, including relatives, friends and former basketball coaches, have positively identified the girl on the tape. Others have positively identified the author of "Thoia Thoing."

• The tape pretty damn well looks like it was filmed in R. Kelly's "log cabin room."

• Their video expert believes its patently ridiculous to think the tape is a product of CGI.

• It's a videotape of a famous singer pissing on an underage girl, COME ON!

For the defense:

• Neither R. Kelly nor the alleged victim will admit that they're on the tape.

• Several of her family members claim that they do not recognize her as being on the tape.

• A lot of those prosecution witnesses gave conflicting testimony, and have criminal records and/or have beef with the Pied Piper Of R&B.

• The defense's video expert gave a presentation on the wonders of CGI that is probably etched in the brains of those who saw it for eternity.

• No one knows where this tape came from (though there is speculation). All that has been confirmed is that Stephanie "Sparkle" Anderson told Jim DeRogatis she'd seen a sex tape, and a few weeks later it appeared in his mailbox. Conspiracy? Fraud? For the defense, a "maybe" is more than enough.

And really, that's the main problem for the prosecution. It doesn't matter whether the "Little Man" defense holds up, or if there's a clear line of logic as to why Sparkle, Chuck & Keith, Lisa Van Allen and her fiance would spend mountains of cash making a fake sex tape (circa 2001, remember) in hopes of blackmailing R. Kelly to get them to change their testimony. As long as they succeed in making the jurors unsure as to who and what they're actually seeing, they have to deliver a verdict of "not guilty." Thanks to a less than stellar pool of prosecution witnesses, it seems like the defense might have had the easier job.

Closing Arguments — A Preview [Sun-Times]