A famous lawyer is revealing a lot about a shocking case that fascinated the country over ten years ago.
The attorney, who was previously responsible for R. Kelly’s defense when the R&B singer was facing his previous sexual misconduct charges, has come out with additional revelations about the celebrity.
According to Ed Genson, R. Kelly allegedly needed special drugs to control his libido, without which he was helpless in resisting his urges.
Genson stated: "He was guilty as hell! I’ll tell you a secret. I had him go to a doctor to get shots, libido-killing shots. That’s why he didn’t get arrested for anything else."
However, Genson added that he did not believe that R. Kelly was recently guilty of anything else.
He stated that the libido shots were the reason he was so confident of the Chicago crooner's current innocence, claiming that they were of enormous help in bringing him under control.
Genson also stated that he was responsible for checking R. Kelly’s records before they were released to the public, with the main intention of stopping anything that might be taken the wrong way by a judge.
The lawyer claims to have been ticked off by at least one track, “Ignition,” which made him believe that R. Kelly was indeed guilty and had problems with his self-control.
Genson added: "I didn’t facilitate him. He had already done what he’d done. I did facilitate him in the sense I kept him out of trouble for 10 years. I was vetting his records. I listened to them, which ones would make a judge mad."
According to the attorney, his former client may have been fooled into believing that he is immune from prosecution due to winning his previous case.
The legal expert claims that this is not the first time this has happened to someone, and it is a typical case with many people who go through major trials.
For now, R. Kelly has a serious battle ahead of him, with at least ten charges related to sexual misconduct, some of them against minors specifically. He has so far went on to deny the claims.
Do you think Genson is wrong or right about his description of Kelly?