R. Kelly actually had an expert testify about the mole on his back:

R. Kelly‘s mole returned to the forefront of his child pornography trial on Thursday, as a forensic video analyst testified the blemish on the R&B star’s back is not identical to the dark mark seen on the man in the sex tape.

The mole has emerged as the surprise crux of the singer’s defense in the three weeks since testimony began. From the onset, his attorneys have told the jury that the caterpillar-shaped mark along Kelly’s spine would clear him of the crime.

Ugh. There are many things I didn’t need to know about R. Kelly, and I certainly didn’t need to know, nor could I have cared less, that Kelly has a mole on his back.

He could’ve had the bloody thing removed in his doctor’s office sometime over the past six years this trial has been delayed.

In addition to Kelly claiming he’s not the guy, the defense is also claiming the girl is not the girl:

Shonna Edwards, 27, said she was formerly in a singing group with her cousin, who prosecutors allege is the underage girl in the tape. The group toured throughout Europe in the late 1990s, she said.

“Was the female in the [sex] tape your cousin?” asked defense lawyer Ed Genson.

“No, she definitely wasn’t her,” Edwards said.

Similar words from an uncle later on.

On the other hand, the fiance of the prosecution’s star witness reportedly wanted $300,000 to keep her quiet:

Jack Palladino — a private investigator best known for being hired by Bill Clinton to track down women he’d been linked with — testified Thursday that the fiance of the prosecution’s star witness wanted a $300,000 payoff to keep the witness quiet.

The star witness, Lisa Van Allen, testified Monday that she had engaged in threesomes with R. Kelly and the underage girl who allegedly appears in a sex tape with the singer.

So, R. Kelly’s not the guy, the girl is not the girl, but Lisa Van Allen might have kept quiet about the whole thing for a few bucks? Everyone’s bending over backwards to drag each other further into the mud.

Mr. Kelly may be innocent — and he is, right now, innocent until proven guilty. But we need to remember what this is really about: the awful reality that an underage girl may have been horribly violated. If she was, we don’t need another sexual predator driving around the south suburbs of Chicago looking for his next conquest.