The Official R. Kelly Trial Thread

he couldn't plea bargain down to a term he'd accept b/c it's a fed issue...when child porn is involved, it's no longer a state matter...that's y it's taken so long to go to trial.

i believe he's settled three allegations...maybe more. and let's not forget he married aaliyah w/o her parent's consent when she was only 15....
 
I understand how bad this looks for R. Kelly. But I'm wondering, does the prosecution still have to prove that the girl who's denying it's her on the tape is lying to protect him? Or is that irrevelant now?
 
Last edited:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/rkelly/2008/06/van_allen_we_had_threeway_sex.html

Witness: We had threesome on R. Kelly's basketball court
June 2, 2008

BY KIM JANSSEN

Lisa Van Allen's testimony lived up to its explosive billing this lunchtime. She's still being questioned, but she's already dropped several bombshells.

Van Allen said she had met R. Kelly at the video shoot for "Home Alone," in which she appeared. Kelly's cousin, "Blacky" invited her to join Kelly in Kelly's trailer, she said. She talked with Kelly and ended up "having intercourse" with him in the trailer, she said. She was 17 at the time, she said.

The pair exchanged numbers and Van Allen soon visited Kelly in Chicago, eventually giving up her job in Atlanta to be with him full time. Kelly paid for her to stay in hotels and she spent most of her time with him at the studio.

In late 1998, she testified, Kelly took her to his former home on the North Side of Chicago, where she met the alleged victim in this case for the first time. Kelly taped them while they had three-way sex in his "log-cabin" room, she said. That's the same room he's alleged to have filmed the tape in this case. Kelly told her the alleged victim was 16, she said.


On another occasion, following an awards ceremony in Chicago at which Kelly had been honored, Van Allen, Kelly and the alleged victim in this case again had videotaped three-way sex. But this time they did it on Kelly's basketball court.

"He took up his camera and we took off our clothes and we all had sex again," she said. Van Allen said Kelly stopped the sex session after she broke down crying. "I didn't want to do it," she said.

On a third occasion, sometime in 2000, Kelly, Van Allen and the alleged victim romped again, this time in his trailer at the video shoot for "Woman's Threat," Van Allen said. Kelly and the alleged victim ran naked to hide after somebody knocked on the door and disturbed them, she said.

Van Allen said Kelly carried a "duffel bag" with his home-made porn it wherever he went.

"He carried it everywhere," she said. "If we was at the studio, it was in the studio with him; if he was at Hoops (his gym) it would be at Hoops with him...the bag would follow him."

Van Allen confessed she had stolen R. Kelly's Rolex watch from a Georgia hotel in 2001. She said she had been granted state and federal immunity from prosecution for child porn in return for her testimony.

Asked why she had come forward to testify, she said, "It's the right thing to do."

She said she was not there when the tape at the center of this case was made, but identified the alleged victim and Kelly as being on that tape.

Posted by Kim Janssen on June 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Permalink

R. Kelly's attorneys paint Lisa Van Allen as thief, extortionist
On cross-examination, R. Kelly's attorney Sam Adam Sr. is attempting to paint Lisa Van Allen as a liar and a thief.

Adam got Van Allen to admit that she had relationships with two men convicted for fraud in the federal courts. One - Damon Pryor - is the so-called "mystery witness" who flew into town at the last minute last week. He's the father of Van Allen's child. The other man - Yul Brown - is Van Allen's current partner.

Under questioning from Adam, Van Allen said that she knew Pryor had served time for fraud before they met in 2001. She also knew Brown was a fraudster, she said.

She laughed when Adam asked her if she only dated men with federal fraud convictions.

While she and Pryor were together, Pryor told her "how you interject yourself into a case - that you go at the last minute" with important testimony, she said. Van Allen agreed with Adam that Pryor was a "conman," describing their relationship as "a mistake."

Adam pointed out that Van Allen had not come forward for nearly five-and-a-half years as a witness against Kelly, suggesting a link between Pryor's advice and her late emergence as a witness.

But Van Allen denied telling Pryor that the tape at the center of the case was a fake, or that she had told him she planned to extort cash from Kelly. She denied telling a Minnesota woman the same thing, also denying that she knew two men called "Chuck and Keith" had staged the tape at the center of the case to get money from Kelly.

The Minnesota woman, Lena Prado, has not been mentioned in court before, but Van Allen said she had known her since 1999. Van Allen denied having a sexual relationship with Prado.

Van Allen did admit to stealing Kelly's $20,000 Rolex from his hotel room. Asked why she had never admitted stealing the watch until today, she said, "That's not what (R. Kelly's) on trial for."

She acknowledged that her current partner, Brown, had been sentenced to probation for a weapons conviction just two weeks after she eventually approached prosecutors, offering to testify against Kelly. But she denied that prosecutors had told her they "needed" her to take the stand. Brown had faced up to 22 years for possessing a loaded AK-47 machine gun, Adam said.
 
Last edited:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/rkelly/

R. Kelly's accountant paid $40,000 for return of sex tape, Van Allen says

R. Kelly's accountant paid Lisa Van Allen and a Kansas man $20,000 each to return a videotape of Kelly participating in a threesome with Van Allen and the alleged victim in this case, Van Allen testified this afternoon.

Van Allen said the $40,000 pay-off, exclusively revealed by the Sun-Times, was made to her in March 2007. Kelly personally offered her $250,000, but only $40,000 was handed over, she said. Van Allen said she invested the pay-off in her business. Kelly's business manager Derrel McDavid, handed over the cash, she said.

The day after the Sun-Times revealed the pay-off, Kelly's attorney Sam Adam Jr. visited Van Allen and her boyfriend, Yul Brown, in Atlanta to interview her, defense attorney Sam Adam Sr. said. Under questioning from Adam Sr., Van Allen repeatedly denied that Brown had tried to extort cash from Adam Jr. at that meeting.

She also denied that Brown had boasted that he and Van Allen had been offered a $300,000 book deal.
 
Last edited:
State rests in Kelly trial

The state has rested its case in the R. Kelly child porn trial.

Prosecutor Shauna Boliker had no further questions for star witness Lisa Van Allen after today's late lunch break.

The state had been expected to call a medical expert who would testify about the alleged victim's likely age on the notorious sex tape. But at 4:45 p.m., Boliker announced that the state had called its last witness.

Kelly's attorneys are due to begin presenting their case Wednesday morning. The jury will have tomorrow off.
Sun-Times reporter Jim DeRogatis must appear in court tomorrow, Judge Gaughan said. Gaughan ruled Friday that DeRogatis must testify for the defense.
 
I'm trying to be as impartial as possible but all the curcamstantial and real evidence against Kellz is damning and I'm starting to think he is infact guilty.
 
Last edited:
Damn, after reading some of that mess.... wow.

It looks horrible for the Kels.
 
Apperantly there was some Lawyer who tried to sell his demo to Kellz and they threw him out.. what madness happens in celebrity trials.
 
Defense paints key R. Kelly witness as profit-seeking liar

Prosecution rests after woman testifies she had encounters with Kelly, minor

The R. Kelly prosecution finished its case Monday with dramatic testimony from the first person to assert direct knowledge of an inappropriate sexual relationship between the R&B superstar and the girl depicted in a sex tape at the heart of the child pornography case.

Lisa Van Allen, 27, detailed three-way sexual encounters with the singer and the alleged victim. But Van Allen didn't leave the stand before defense attorneys ruthlessly challenged her credibility by calling her a liar and asking her if she demanded $350,000 to change her story.

She denied trying to extort money from Kelly, an ex-lover whom she began seeing when she was 17. The Georgia woman offered a smug smile and occasionally rolled her eyes as Kelly's lawyers portrayed her as a thieving blackmailer who they say only came forward to spare her fiance from going to prison.

"I want to do what is right," Van Allen said of her motives before Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan.


Like 14 previous witnesses, Van Allen, who is four months' pregnant, identified Kelly and his then-minor goddaughter as the participants in the 27-minute video.

She further bolstered the charges against Kelly by telling the jury that the Grammy Award winner made a similar sex tape with herself and the alleged victim in late 1998. Van Allen testified that video, which she said was filmed in the same location as the one at the center of the trial, could not be entered into evidence because she sold it to the singer's business manager for $20,000 last year.

As she ran her hand over her small baby bump, Van Allen denied she had blackmailed her former boyfriend. Rather, she described the payment as a gratuity for helping him recover the tape.

"I didn't try to extort anyone," she said.

First meeting recalled

Van Allen testified she met Kelly while working as an extra in his "Home Alone" video in 1997. He allegedly invited her to his on-set trailer, where the two talked for a bit and then had sex, she said.

She says Kelly asked if her mother would mind if she came to Chicago. When Van Allen promised it wouldn't be a problem, the two exchanged phone numbers.

After a few short visits, Van Allen said she moved to Chicago to be with Kelly, who was married. She said she joined him on a two-month concert tour, in which he would "pick" her from the audience each night and pull her up on stage to have simulated sex with him.

"I traveled with him," Van Allen said of their relationship. "We went to the mall, movies, things like that."

Kelly introduced her to the alleged victim in late 1998 and told her that the girl was 16, Van Allen testified. On the night they met, Kelly brought them to his log cabin-themed basement, set up a video camera and recorded a three-way sexual encounter, she said.

A year later, Kelly brought the teens back to his house and filmed them having group sex on a futon mattress placed on Kelly's indoor basketball court, she said. Van Allen wept as she testified that during the filming she began crying and the singer angrily accused her of ruining the recording.

"He got upset," she said, wiping away tears. "He said he couldn't watch that. He couldn't do anything with me crying."

Van Allen testified she sometimes would see the alleged victim at Kelly's recording studio with her parents or among the singer's entourage. She said they had a third three-way sexual encounter in 2000, but it was not recorded.

By 2001, Van Allen said, she returned to Atlanta but remained in contact with Kelly. When he traveled to Georgia later that year, they spent the weekend shopping and having sex, she said. She also admitted stealing a diamond watch from him valued at $20,000 during the visit.

"Before I ended up leaving, I took a Rolex watch from him," she said.

Van Allen said she knew Kelly had been indicted in June 2002 for a sex tape featuring the Oak Park teen. But she says she kept quiet because she was preoccupied with the birth of her first child.

"I had just had my daughter," she said. "My mind was not on getting involved."

Kelly's defense team, though, grilled her as to why she didn't come forward as the case languished for nearly six years. Her first foray into the case came in March 2007, when she says she contacted Kelly about a videotape she had of the threesome.

Van Allen testified she took the tapes from the singer's duffel bag without his knowledge.

"He carried [the bag] everywhere with him," she said. "Wherever he was at, the bag would follow."

After telling Kelly she took the tape, the singer flew her to Chicago and put her up in a hotel near his Olympia Fields mansion, Van Allen said. She said she told him she didn't have the video with her and he offered to pay her $250,000 to secure it.

He tried to offer me money," she said. "I did not extort him."

Kelly then arranged for a male acquaintance of Van Allen's to fly in with the video, she said. Van Allen and the man met with Kelly's business manager, Derrel McDavid, in the presidential suite of a downtown Chicago hotel to view the video, she said.

Van Allen testified that once McDavid decided the tape was legitimate, he paid both she and the acquaintance $20,000 apiece. He promised additional money after they handed over the master tape, she said.

McDavid, a longtime Kelly associate, denied her allegations Monday evening.

"Lisa Van Allen is an admitted thief and liar who wouldn't know the truth if she tripped over it," he said in a statement. "If there was any crime committed here, it was her attempt to extort money from R. Kelly."


Authorities contacted

Van Allen testified she did not speak with law-enforcement officials until early March, when her fiance, Yul Brown, contacted the state's attorney's office. Van Allen said two prosecutors flew to Atlanta to speak with her and suggested her testimony would be critical because the alleged victim and her parents denied her participation in the video to the grand jury.

A few weeks before the meeting, Brown had been arrested on charges of drug possession and illegally possessing an AK-47 assault rifle. He faced up to 22 years in prison, but received probation. The defense suggested Cook County prosecutors interceded on Brown's behalf, though Van Allen said she had no knowledge of such an intervention.

A Cook County state's attorney spokeswoman would not comment, citing a gag order placed upon parties in the case.

In a telephone interview after his fiance's testimony, Brown denied receiving any favors because of this case.

"I paid for a great attorney," he said. "Whether I had a gun charge or not it had nothing to with [Van Allen's] testimony. Now that people know the truth, that's all we're really concerned about."

Kelly's team contends Van Allen tried to extort money from Kelly this month during a meeting with defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. and hinted she would switch her story for the right price. According to the defense, Brown said the couple had a $350,000 book deal in the works and it was time Kelly "made things right."

Under intense questioning during cross-examination, Van Allen said she and Brown told Adam they would only tell the truth.
 
Chicago reporter Jim DeRogatis was the first media source to get his hands on the infamous R. Kelly sex tape in 2002. The journalist was commanded to appear on the witness stand, but failed to show up yesterday, prompting the presiding judge to threaten contempt of court charges and possible jail time. But this morning Judge Vincent Gaughan ruled that the report doesn't have to testify afterall.
Kelly's legal team wanted DeRogatis to take the stand, saying that his testimony was "crucial" to the singer's defense, according to Suntimes.com. The [COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]lawyers[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] claimed it would undermine the testimony of prosecution witness Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards, who testified that the young girl - approximated to be 13 years old - in the video is a relative of hers, and that the man on film is R. Kelly.

Judge Gaughan ruled last Friday that DeRogatis had no protection against testifying under either the First Amendment or the Illinois reporter's privilege, but that ruling was overturned this morning because the reporter is protected against self-incrimination under the [COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fifth [/FONT][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Amendment[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]. .


http://www.livesteez.com/news/news_detail/761
 
I don't see how R. Kelly is going to be found guilty. There are family members of the alleged victim... and the alleged victim herself... saying it's not her. Nothing from Florida is going to be allowed in this because everything was thrown out, it's nothing.

R. Kelly definitely has a history of enjoying underage girls, but this is just not going to be what does him in. You've got a copy of a copy of a copy-looking tape, family and the alleged victim failing to identify the girl on the tape, and the person who found the tape and brought it to police is pleading the fifth...

Kelly is walking.
 
I don't see how R. Kelly is going to be found guilty. There are family members of the alleged victim... and the alleged victim herself... saying it's not her. Nothing from Florida is going to be allowed in this because everything was thrown out, it's nothing.

R. Kelly definitely has a history of enjoying underage girls, but this is just not going to be what does him in. You've got a copy of a copy of a copy-looking tape, family and the alleged victim failing to identify the girl on the tape, and the person who found the tape and brought it to police is pleading the fifth...

Kelly is walking.

I completely agree he's going to be acquitted, i just don't see that jury finding him guilty and sending him away for 15 years with so much reasonable doubt that exist. You have a family who have of them say it's her the other half say it's not and that's reasonable doubt right there.
 
the girl herself could testify and say it was her and he'd still walk.

the fact is the man is a proven liar. he didn't know about this sex tape yet they found pics from the tape in his florida home....

he doesn't recognize teh room the sex acts took place in yet it's in a very specific room in his house that many know about....

then the person in the tape is his brother....
 
I completely agree he's going to be acquitted, i just don't see that jury finding him guilty and sending him away for 15 years with so much reasonable doubt that exist. You have a family who have of them say it's her the other half say it's not and that's reasonable doubt right there.
I don't think it matters whether it's the girl or not, though, I think it matters whether the girl in the video is underage. If they do a dna test they could find out if the girl is underage. The next thing is whether it is R.Kelly on the tape. Seems to me that the defence is going back and forth. One minute it isn't him, then the next minute it isn't his face, then it isn' t the girl. They need to stick to one line of argument. That argument should have been that it isn't him. Noting else should matter. Trying to prove that the girl on the tape is not the one, is like acknowledging that it is him on the tape.
 
I don't think it matters whether it's the girl or not, though, I think it matters whether the girl in the video is underage. If they do a dna test they could find out if the girl is underage. The next thing is whether it is R.Kelly on the tape. Seems to me that the defence is going back and forth. One minute it isn't him, then the next minute it isn't his face, then it isn' t the girl. They need to stick to one line of argument. That argument should have been that it isn't him. Noting else should matter. Trying to prove that the girl on the tape is not the one, is like acknowledging that it is him on the tape.

How can they do a DNA test on the girl if they don't know who it is? They'll never be able to determine if the girl is underage if they don't know who she is, despite what the prosecution or analysts say, because there is a HUGE window of reasonable doubt if they can't identify the girl.
 
R. Kelly's attorneys attempt to chip away at credibility of state's witnesses
For perhaps the first time since R. Kelly's trial began, this morning's testimony was completely free of drama and the circus-like atmosphere that has enveloped the case.

It felt like a normal trial, almost.

There were no bombshells, just five witnesses in quick succession who the defense hopes will chip away at the state's case.

First up was Det. Dan Everett, the Chicago cop who was called by the prosecution on the first day of the trial. Recalled today by the defense, Everett testified that prosecution witness Bennie Edwards Sr. - a relative of the alleged victim in the case - had downplayed R. Kelly's role in the alleged victim's career in a 2003 interview.

Private investigator John Eireman then testified that Adra Gengler, one of the Oak Park parents who knew the alleged victim and identified her as being on the tape, had given him an earlier interview where she said "it could be anyone" on the tape. Of the Oak Park residents who identified Kelly and the alleged victim for the prosecution, Gengler seemed the least certain, saying she was only "80%" sure it was the alleged victim until she saw the tape on the morning of her testimony.

Another private eye, Michael Slevnik, then testified that he had also attended an interview with Gengler, in which she said it was "questionable at best" whether the alleged victim was the girl on the tape.

Chicago Police Officer Joseph Verdin then testified, briefly, about Bennie Edwards Sr.'s recent crack cocaine arrest.

Finally, a third private investigator Alison Cain, testified that she had traveled to Atlanta to interview Lisa Van Allen in March this year. Van Allen told her she couldn't speak about the case, Cain said, adding that Van Allen's fiance, Yul Brown said people had been "pressuring" Van Allen not to speak about the case.

Lisa's fiance solicited payoff, Exhibit 95 says
Wednesday afternoon wrapped up with the testimony of Jason Wallace, a sports agent who doubles as a law clerk for defense lawyers Sam Adam Sr. and Sam Adam Jr.

Wallace went with Sam Jr. to Atlanta on May 9 to meet with Lisa Van Allen after the Sun-Times reported that a witness — who turned out to be Van Allen — was allegedly paid off by a Kelly aide for returning a sex tape. The Sun-Times had previously reported the witness would testify she had a threesome with R. Kelly and the underage girl in the sex video.

At a May 10 meeting in the Atlanta Ritz-Carlton, Van Allen's fiance Yul Brown indicated she would change her testimony in exchange for $350,000, Wallace testified Wednesday.

"He wanted something so that she wouldn't testify," Wallace said.

While cross-examining Van Allen on Monday, Sam Sr. had brought Wallace out and asked her if she recognized him from their meeting at the Ritz-Carlton. She did, and the defense lawyer put a sticker on Wallace's lapel marking him as defense exhibit 95.

Wallace said that at the outset of the meeting, Brown asked Sam Jr. and Wallace if he could pat them down. "It just seemed like he was wondering if we were wearing something," Wallace said.

"By something, do you mean a wire?" Sam Sr. asked.

"Yes," Wallace said.

Van Allen never spoke during the meeting, Wallace said, but she nodded in agreement with Brown's statements, and never showed any disagreement.

"When Sam Adam Jr. showed him the Sun-Times article, did Brown say, 'Don't worry about that, it can be handled?'" Sam Sr. said.

"Yes, he did," Wallace said.

Brown allegedly said to Wallace that Van Allen "is pregnant, and we have to look out for our family."

"Did Brown say, Lisa does not have to testify in court if things are made right?" Sam Sr. asked.

"Yes," Wallace said.

"Did Brown say, 'Well, I'm not going to put a price on this right now, but they know what is right'?" Sam Sr. asked.

"Yes," Wallace said.

"Did Sam Adam Jr, say, 'Well, I'm not going to be part of anything illegal, but I'll relay any message you want relayed'?" Sam Sr. asked.

"Yes, he did," Wallace said.

Cross-examining Wallace, assistant state's attorney Bob Heilingoetter could barely contain his scorn. At one point, Heilingoetter asked Wallace if he was "frustrated" by Van Allen's refusal to speak during the meeting — and Wallace said no.

"You weren't frustrated, because you were looking to dig up a little dirt," Heilingoetter said.

Heilingoetter pointed out the defense had known about Van Allen since March 12, and wondered why they waited until the first day of trial to fly down to Atlanta. Jack Palladino, a private investigator hired by Kelly, met with Van Allen on March 16 and March 18.

Heilingoetter then asked Wallace about a written statement he prepared on May 10 summarizing the Ritz-Carlton meeting.

"What you chose to do was, you yourself prepared a summary of an interview with Lisa Van Allen," Heilingoetter said.

"Yes," Wallace said.

"An interview in which Lisa Van Allen uttered not one word," Heilingoetter said.

"After being aware of Lisa Van Allen for two months, the purpose of your trip wasn't to interview Lisa Van Allen, it was to try to create some sort of illusion of impropriety that you could use against her at this trial," he added.



Celebrity P.I. Palladino alleges extortion attempt by Van Allen's fiance
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. As part of her testimony, she said she and her fiance, Yul Brown, met with Palladino in March, and that the investigator threatened her.

Palladino said that even before flying to Atlanta for the meeting, "I had a very good idea they would try to extort money... I wanted to give them the opportunity to commit the crime."

According to Palladino, Brown solicited the bribe by mentioning a $300,000 book deal Van Allen potentially had to tell the story of her life with Kelly.

"I didn't believe there was a book deal. The $300,000 was a coded way to get money from my client," Palladino said. The investigator said he unequivocally told Brown that Kelly would not pay them anything.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Bob Heilingoetter noted that neither Brown or Van Allen had ever explicity asked for money.

"I'm trying to figure out where this extortion is, except somewhere between your ears," Heilingoetter said.

But Palladino testified the two repeatedly said they wanted to do what was best for their family and urged the investigator to talk to Kelly.

"There's little doubt about what that meant... It meant, 'I want to take care of them financially'," Palladino said.

Heilingoetter noted Palladino was paid $15,000 for the Atlanta trip. "So for $15,000, you found out that Yul Brown wanted to do what's best for his family. Nice work, detective," Heilingoetter said.

Palladino said he recorded the conversation.
 
Defense's video analyst rebuts state expert


After lunch, the defense called forensic video analyst Charles Palm to counter the state's expert.

Palm has faced off against Grant Fredericks in previous cases. For more than an hour and a half Thursday afternoon, Palm presented his own frame-by-frame analysis of the sex tape to refute Fredericks' opinions.

Fredericks had previously testified that he'd spotted a mole on the back of the male participant in the sex tape. He said that the mark on Kelly's back as shown in his 2002 arrest photo was similar in size and location as the mole on the man in the video.

But Palm testified Thursday that, in his opinion, the printed images upon which Fredericks based his analysis were "of such poor quality" that he couldn't understand how Fredericks arrived at those conclusions.

As for the moving images on the tape, Palm told the court that the mark was not a mole but rather residue and shadowing that disappears and reappears on the frame.

Would the mole on Kelly's back likely pull such a disappearing act?

"No, that's a fairly high-contrast mole on the skin. I would expect to see it as a persistent image," Palm said. "[The mark] was not anything that was physically a part of the back of the individual."

After testifying there was evidence that the tape had been digitally edited, Palm went on to show just how easy it would be for someone to fabricate the sex tape. He showed snippets of the tape that he had manipulated, ones in which the images of the man and young girl fade in and out.

At one point, the man is shown to be having sex with a girl with no head and vice versa.

Fredericks had testified that it would take an expert working around the clock for 44 years to manufacture the 27-minute tape. Palm, however, said he made those snippets in a few spare hours in a couple of afternoons.

He also said you don't have to be an expert to do it.

Palm, who earns $250 an hour for such accounts, has no formal training or certification in forensic video analysis. What he knows about the subject he would "pick it up on my own."

His work has never been published or reviewed by peers in the forensic video analysis field. He has written no books and hasn't published any articles in forensic journals. And Palm has analyzed 11 tapes in the last six years. He has a doctorate in engineering.

Still, Palm said, you don't need training when you have computer programs. "The computer can do something like this in just a matter of a few seconds," he said.
 
i love how they make the tape out to be so damn grainy...every reporter has said it's not as bad as they'r emaking it seem...

and a dna test cannot tell the age of a person
 
four of this girl's family members tetsified for the STATE saying it was her while three testified for r(ah) saying it wasn't her so whatever....he prolly paid them off too...
 
the whole things a joke i agree with others i doubt any jury is gonna lock someone away for so a long time when the whole things is worse than a B movie script
 
I'm not undersstanding the case at all, but eitherway, his defence is very wishy washy. Very confusing. How can he say it wasn't him in the tape and then claim that his head was superimposed. that is like admitting that the head was his. Then he wants to prove that the girl wasn't the one in the tape, but why? If it isn't him, why even prove that it wasn't the girl? Why not let the girl come in and speak for herself?
I am trying to understand without passing judement, but it seems that he has some very angry black men out there wanting to see him put away.
He doesn't seem to have any international support either. I guess he wasn't as big abroad as some people thought.
 
Sometimes procudure in law can be a real *****, if all the jurors there know about the screencaps of the video that was found in R Kelly's possession then they KNOW he is guilty but the question is .. can they find him LEGALLY guilty? NO, they cant.
They way the cops got the those pics infringed on Kelz's right since it was an illegal search but cant they find it to be a justifiable and reasonable limitation because its in the interest of justice?
American law confuses me sometimes, I'l never come and practice there, not unless I'm defending my boy Mike,lol!
 
Three relatives of the girl who allegedly appears in a sex videotape with R&B superstar R. Kelly took the stand Wednesday -- and each said the girl on the tape is not their family member.
Kelly, 41, is charged with videotaping himself engaging in sex acts with a girl 13 to 16 years old. If convicted of child pornography, he faces up to 15 years in prison.



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.
Prosecutors showed each of the three defense witnesses -- Shonna Edwards, Charlotte Edwards and Leroy Edwards -- a photo of the alleged victim next to a frame from the sex video. The side-by-side pictures were projected on a large screen.


Prosecutors asked them if it was "possible" the photos were of the same girl. Each witness said no.
Cross-examining Leroy Edwards, the alleged victim's uncle, prosecutor Robert Heilingoetter sounded incredulous.
"And it's your testimony that you don't recognize this girl?" he asked.
"No, I don't," Leroy Edwards responded.


Shonna Edwards admitted her singing group thanked R. Kelly in the acknowledgments on its CD. Shonna's father Leroy, who managed the group, testified Kelly provided "encouraging words and some motivation" for the group.
Asked if she thought the man on the tape was Kelly, Shonna Edwards said, "that does not appear to be him."


The testimony from the relatives -- including Charlotte Edwards, the girl's aunt -- stands in sharp contrast to that of other relatives who testified that the girl in the tape is their family member, now 23.
It is not clear yet whether the girl herself will testify for the defense, though she told a grand jury she's not on the tape.




http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/kelly/989354,CST-NWS-Rkelly05.article
 
It is not clear yet whether the girl herself will testify for the defense, though she told a grand jury she's not on the tape.

so how did it get to trial is she said herself its not her. if theres not a clear picture proving it one way or the other it seems daft to ignore the such evidence.kinda like the 1108 of mac and wade etc
 
so how did it get to trial is she said herself its not her. if theres not a clear picture proving it one way or the other it seems daft to ignore the such evidence.kinda like the 1108 of mac and wade etc

This is what I am mystified about. If the girl and her momma is saying it isn't her, Why are we in a trial. It seems very ridiculous to me. Unless they can prove that it is the girl, I don't see how they can convict him. The law is ridiculous.
 
This is what I am mystified about. If the girl and her momma is saying it isn't her, Why are we in a trial. It seems very ridiculous to me. Unless they can prove that it is the girl, I don't see how they can convict him. The law is ridiculous.

the part of your quote i put in bolded letters is the crux of this whole situation.

the usa is a country where the laws vary dramatically from state to state.
 
it's funny.....he's a pedophile...they just can'tcatch him THIS TIME> that's y they make laws like 288(a) & b cuz pedos are notoriously hard to catch and convict.

it doesn't matter if tehre's a complaining witness...it's a child porn trial, it's a federal issue...learn the law before u criticize it
 
f.y.i.

it's funny.....he's a pedophile...they just can'tcatch him THIS TIME> that's y they make laws like 288(a) & b cuz pedos are notoriously hard to catch and convict.

it doesn't matter if tehre's a complaining witness...it's a child porn trial, it's a federal issue...learn the law before u criticize it

this trial is not being tried by the feds. and its not in federal court.

288(a) is a cali penal code. this case is being held in chicago ill in Cook County..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top