To give you a little background, it all started in 2002 when music critic Jim DeRogatis was given a video by a currently unnamed source featuring what appeared to be R. Kelly giving an allegedly underage girl money, then getting a BJ from her, having sex with her, and pissing on her. DeRogatis broke the story in the Chicago Sun-Times, and shortly thereafter R. Kelly was charged with soliciting a minor for child pornography, seven counts of videotaping the acts, and seven counts of producing child pornography. Now, six years after the initial indictment, the trial has begun and it’s like the sexy remix of the O.J. Simpson trial.

Proceedings began in late May with a viewing of the tape so the jurors could see exactly what they’re working with. What they saw was a half hour long video featuring a man that looks a hell of a lot like R. Kelly and a girl that looks a hell of a lot like the alleged victim doing things that are definitely not legal for a 31-year-old man and a 14-year-old girl to do together. However, both Kelly and the girl claim that the individuals in the video are not them, and the defense’s major claim is that the tape is part of an elaborate scheme by the girl’s family to extort money from the singer.

The interesting thing about this claim is that not all of the members of the victim’s family can agree that the girl on the tape is her. While Shonna, Leroy, and Charlotte Edwards (uncle, cousin, and aunt, respectively) deny that the girl on the tape is the alleged victim, four other relatives, including Stephanie “Sparkle” Edwards, a former protégé of Kelly’s, say that their relative and the girl on the tape are most certainly one in the same. This allegation is also backed up by the girl’s former BFF Simha Jamison (who, BTW, said she recognized the girl on the video by her mullet haircut) and by Lisa Van Allen, who claims that she was involved in numerous videotaped threesomes with Kelly and the victim.

Kelly’s former assistant Lindsay Perryman also identified the alleged victim as the girl in the video, and the man as her employer. She said she recognized the girl from back in the day when she would hang out at the studio after school doing her homework and babysitting the singer’s children.

And then there’s the mole.

In a few scenes, a large mole can be seen on the lower back of the man in the video – police photos of Kelly’s naked torso reveal that he has a mole on his back in the same location. While this would seem to be pretty cut and dry evidence that the man in the video is Kelly, the defense retaliated by having a forensic video expert come in and break the film down frame by frame, showing that sometimes the mole is there, and then other times it isn’t. The expert contested that the mole isn’t a mole at all, but rather an “artifact” from poor lighting and recording equipment.

Not convinced yet that the trial is a total madhouse? Have I mentioned that the alleged victim is Kelly’s guitarist’s daughter and the singer’s goddaughter? Or that a fan broke in to the courthouse to scream “Free R. Kelly!” at the jurors? Or that one of Kelly’s lawyers actually referenced the movie magic of the Wayans brother’s Little Man when talking about how the film footage could be doctored? If you haven’t been keeping track of this story, I suggest you start. It’s enough to make you think twice about your would-be amateur porn videos. And love for R. Kelly. And, of course, pissing on kids.

[A special thanks to celebritysmackblog.com for the awesome pic.]