Monday, December 19, 2005

R KELLY TRIES TO GET THE ALLEGATIONS THROWN OUT. AGAIN.

Good god, by the time R Kelly's team finally accepts he's going to have to stand trial on the child porn charges the allegations are going to be older than his sexual partner was: this time, they're targetting the wording of the prosecution's allegations:

The singer's attorneys argued that the prosecutors' phrasing that Kelly "knew or should have known" that the girl was underage was contradictory, vague and unconstitutional.

Now, either Kelly's defence team are stupid - which, okay, isn't totally impossible but seems unlikely - or else they're trying it on. "Knew or should have known" isn't especially contradictory, is it? It just means "she was a child, it was obvious, and if her age wasn't obvious then he should have made efforts to find out." Really, if this is the best they can do, Kelly should probably think about avoiding setting up any dates for 2007.