R Kelly trial: Defence concludes "It wasn't me" defence

We're a bit confused about the R Kelly defence team at the trial - we could understand adopting a 'it wasn't me on the video' line, or a 'the video has been altered to make it look like me' approach. But can you really say "that doesn't even look like me, and it's been altered to look like me"?

We'll find out soon - the defence team have rested their case after concluding with what seemed to be a session pitching for the best animated short at next year's Oscars:

Defense expert Charles Palm made the clip from a section of the sex tape at the center of the case, using special effects to illustrate how easy it is to digitally manipulate video. The defense hopes Palm can successfully refute the evidence of prosecution expert Grant Fredericks, who said that the tape could not have been digitally altered. Parts of the media have dubbed this the "Little Man Defense" or the "Wayans Defense."

The clip showed the couple on the tape having sex in what the state says is the hot tub room at Kelly's former home. Their bodies slowly become transparent, then slowly reappear. Then their heads slowly disappear until their two headless bodies are romping. At one point, the man on the tape - his head intact - appears to be having sex with a headless woman.

The heads come and go "like ghosts" on the manipulated tape Palm said.

Much hangs on a mole which may or may not appear on the man's back in the video. Prosecution belief is that it's Kelly's mole; the defense suggests it's "artefacts on the recording" which come and go.