No, really. The prosecutor asked witness Simha Jamison, whose task was to identify the girl in the video as her friend who was, allegedly, age 13 at the time of the taping, how she knew Kelly's body was that in the video. She responded:
Something, generally, is amiss in this trial, beyond the usual amiss-ness.
From the Chicago Tribune:
Upon viewing the tape, [police investigator Dan] Everett said he recognized the female on the tape because he had interviewed her as part of another investigation in 2000.He said he had been a part of an alleged investigation interview dating back to December 2000, at which point Judge Vincent Gaughan immediately stopped his testimony and asked the jury to leave.
Gaughan then erupted over the use of the word "investigation," having previously issued an order forbidding its use. Gaughan chastised the witness and the prosecution, reminding them that he had promised to grant a mistrial if that word were uttered during testimony.
"If they do it again, I certainly am going to grant a mistrial," Gaughan said. The issue was settled by the witness going on the record saying he was mistaken when characterizing the interview as an investigation.
Given that money changes hands--twice--during the tape, and that the cop has fessed to recognizing the girl from a "previous investigation," I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this tape is a fake, the girl is a prostitute, the cop recognizes her and the prosecution knows the whole thing is a sham.
Oh, and the Kelly defense rests on the fact that he has, apparently, a body-ful of moles and scars that don't match the dude on the tape. Too bad Johnnie Cochran is dead.