It’s hard to say the coverage of the R. Kelly trial provided by the Chicago Sun-Times or the Chicago Tribune has been stellar. While some of the material has been fun to read, the quality varies wildly; the web presentations are confusing; and overall it’s not particularly comprehensive or particularly thoughtful or helpful if you’re trying to follow the case not from the courtroom … which, of course, all of the coverage’s readers are.

So Hitsville’s been trying to go through it and make sense of what’s happened so far. There seems to be three threads to keep an eye on:

1. For one, there’s the R. Kelly CircusWatch™—how tough Judge Vincent Gaughan is going to be on both parties. Thus far, signs are good; he’s been running a tight ship from the beginning; he threw a bystander in jail for yelling at the jurors; and Tuesday he chastised prosecutors for coming in late from lunch. At the same time, trouble is a-brewing: the defense has been making noises about trying to charge some state’s witnesses with a crime—apparently for being in contact with child porn. The defense is also trying to subpoena Jim DeRogatis, the Sun Times reporter who was anonymously delivered, back in 2002, the sex tape at the center of the case.

Kelly deserves a fair trial and his defense should of course try to take the case where it best benefits its client. And I’m not a lawyer. All that said, it seems pretty plain that what happened to the tape after it came to light is irrelevant in the context of charging Kelly with having made the tape in the first place. (“Yes, Your Honor, but after my client killed the son of a bitch this man stole his wallet!”)

The defense is hanging this line of inquiry on the contention that the tape was mysteriously doctored. Even this doesn’t make much sense. The tape might have conceivably been fabricated. (Dark deeds indeed! Given the defense’s lines of contention in the case thus far, the doctoring would have had to include taking some pretty stomach-churning stock sex footage and then stitching it together with similarly lit tape of the girl [who the defense says is not on the tape], Kelly [ditto] … and blending it into some surreptitiously taken footage of Kelly’s basement playroom! Kinda makes you wonder what Industrial Light and Magic was doing on the night of the 23rd.) But the chances of that happening after it was given to the Sun-Times are a little remote. (That would be a journalism story to rival anything in the Ben Hecht storybook.)

Gaughan gave the Sun-Times a week to respond to the motion, which means he might rule tomorrow. Where he goes on this matter may be an indicator of how successful the defense will be in its attempts to distract the forward movement of the trial.

2. Speaking of dark deeds, the more I think about it, the more I wonder what happened to the other R. Kelly sex tapes. The tape that mysteriously appeared in 2002 was actually just one of a triptych of tell-tale tawdriness: There was the film that is being tried right now; there was additional footage of Kelly with an adult woman, which has already been the subject of a civil suit against Kelly from the woman, who claims she did not know she was being videotaped; and another tape of what people who have seen it have said is footage of Kelly having sex with a different under-aged-looking girl. That third portion has not yet come back to light and no mention has been made of it in the case thus far. Wouldn’t the other two tapes have some sort of value in the case? (Kelly’s propensity to film himself, Kelly’s propensity to film himself with very young women….)

3. The running total of how many people have identified Kelly and the girl on the tape. Earlier news stories have said the police have “dozens” of identifying witnesses; there’s been no word on how many will end up testifying. It’s hard, from the coverage I’ve read, to keep exact track of who has testified, but here is at least a partial list of the key testimony this far:

• A Chicago Police investigator testified that he recognized the girl on the tape from talking to her in his ongoing investigation into Kelly’s involvement with young girls.
• Delores Gibson, a Chicago cop who was said to be married to a relative of the girl allegedly on the tape, ID’ed both Kelly and the girl as being on the tape.
• Simha Jamison, was a friend of the girl police say is on the tape; she said she and the girl met Kelly when they were about 12, and that her friend called Kelly “Godfather.” (She was identified that way on one of Kelly’s albums, as well.) She ID’ed Kelly and the girl on the tape.
• Jamison’s guardian, Peter Thomas, identified the girl as well.
• Stephanie “Sparkle” Edwards, the aunt of the girl allegedly on the tape, ID’ed the girl and Kelly.
• Bennie Edwards, Stephanie Edwards’ husband, ID’ed both.
• Tjada Burnett, a neighbor, identified the girl as being on the tape.
• Raven Gengler, a junior high classmate of the alleged girl on the tape, ID’ed the girl and Kelly.
• Lindsey Perryman, at the time Kelly’s personal assistant, ID’ed Kelly and the girl as being on the tape.
• Jacques Conway, a pastor, a retired police sergeant, and a neighbor of the girl alleged to be on the tape, ID’ed the girl.

———-

Previously in Hitsville:

Bad craziness at the R. Kelly trial?

At the R. Kelly trial, they do things they don’t do on Broadway!

Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he was a orphan?

The NYT and R. Kelly: Curiouser and curiouser

The NYT finally notices R. Kelly isn’t a nice guy

R. Kelly and the NYT: The Freaky Defense

Tribune, Sun-Times protest closed hearings in R. Kelly case

Secret hearings in the R. Kelly case

The Godfather Who Shagged Me: The complete R. Kelly SexFacts™—Everything you ever wanted to know about the R. Kelly case

R. Kelly’s Publicist: He slept with my daughter!