The R. Kelly trial, set to begin in Chicago next month, is a font of down-the-rabbit-hole developments:

1) No one has clearly explained why it has taken five years to bring a pretty simple case to trial.

(You will recall it involves a videotape that shows Kelly, the R&B superduperstar, doing all sort of colorful things with a young woman, whom police say is underage. Reports in the Chicago papers have the police saying they know who the woman is, and that she could have been as young as 13 when the video was taken. Jury selection begins Sept. 17.)

2) Several associates of Kelley and even members of the girl’s family are expected to testify that the woman in the video is the daughter of one of Kelly’s associates; but the women herself is as of now not going to testify. She has told police in the past it is not she.

3) The R&B singer Keyshia Cole told MTV last week she was going to be opening for Kelly on tour in October. How Kelly could mount a tour while he is on trial wasn’t explained; Kelley’s camp later said he would not be touring this fall.

4) Last week, the New York magazine web site, waxing all goofy, called Kelly’s “Trapped in the Closet” videos “the cultural event of the year”: the New York Times repeated the quote as if it were serious. As I noted below, the story mentioned Kelly’s legal problems only in passing.

5) Meanwhile, in Chicago, the judge in the trial again ruled that the videotape would be shown at the trial. Reported the Chicago Tribune:

The judge in the R. Kelly child pornography case on Tuesday upheld his ruling allowing the public to view a videotape that allegedly shows the R&B singer having sex with a minor.

In a hearing held to discuss several motions before the trial starts next month, Assistant State’s Atty. Shauna Boliker again urged Cook County Criminal Court Judge Vincent Gaughan to bar the public from viewing the tape in court, which she said would be harmful to the girl portrayed in the video.

“The state alleges it to be a re-victimization of the [girl in the tape],” Boliker said.

In his earlier ruling, Gaughan said there was not an “overarching interest” in keeping the media and the public from seeing a tape that is the “linchpin” of the case.

This is strange, isn’t it? There’s no public interest in further degrading the victimized girl, whoever her assailant in the video is. (Kelly has denied it is he.) Remember, it’s a videotape of a girl being raped and—I hate to keep mentioning this—urinated upon. (Granted, the thing has been on the file-sharing networks for years.) It doesn’t matter who the girl is; assuming, if what the prosecutors and many associates of Kelly have said is true, that the woman is underage, by definition she’s been abused once, and doesn’t deserve to have the tape played in public, right?

Here’s the most bizarre part of the Trib story:

On Tuesday, Gaughan said that because the girl has denied that she is on the tape, there is no victim to protect. Prosecutors said they do not plan to call the girl as a witness.

“If the alleged victim testifies, I’ll change the ruling,” Gaughan said.

How does what that woman says have any bearing on further humiliating the girl who *is* on the tape?

Here’s another nice passage:

In another motion, Kelly’s lawyer Edward Genson asked the court to exclude from trial a portion of the tape showing Kelly urinating on the girl. He argued that such a display would be prejudicial to the defense.

Boliker said that part of the tape is central to two of the charges in the 14-count indictment against Kelly and that it should not be removed “just because something is shocking or distasteful.”

Gaughan denied the motion.